Is Hinduism a religion?

[Spirit_Warrior]

Please note I am posting this in the DIR forum because I want this to be a discussion rather than a debate. This means all I want to hear is the views of all current Hindus on this forum, rather than arguments on who is right. If need be, I will post a separate thread in the debate forum if a debate of these contesting view is required.

I request, so we can get an idea of which view is more popular, to like the view that you agree with and do not like views that you do not agree with. Popularity, of course does not prove which view is right, but it does give us an idea which view is more commonly shared on this forum.

I will first begin by sharing the view of this contemporary Guru who I have immense respect for:

I will now share my view and after this I will not defend it or argue it any further, as I want to read others views.

I understand Sadhguru's argument and I have heard it before, but in the manner in which he articulates it sounds more enlightened that it disarms me to some extent. His argument that the word "Hindu" itself is a geographical identity, and we know historically from the times of the Greek and Persians they called us "Hindu" or "Indio" or in the case of Chinese "Hintoo" and the modern term "India" is just another pronunciation. Therefore, if used in this context, he is right even an earthworm born in India is a Hindu Earthworm. He correctly points out that to this very day another word for India is "Hindustan" and even Muslims in India use this term to designate India. To that extent the word "Hindu" is not divisive.

The problem is, is "Hinduism" a religion? If I asked a Muslim, a Christian or even a Jain or a Buddhist(I will leave Sikh, because it is contentious for me) "Is your religion Hinduism?" Of course I would expect them to say "No" This is when insisting that everybody in India is a follower of Hinduism DOES become divisive. Not only that, because it sort of invalidates the faith of more than a billion people who consider their religion "Hinduism" There may well have been a time in the past when "Hindu" was a geographical identity, but it ceased being a geographical identity in modern times. The British who recognised "Hinduism" as a religion, did not use it in a geographical way like the Persians, Greeks or the Chinese did, they used it to designate a particular creed of people who belonged to the Vedic tradition of religions, and differentiated other groups like "Mohammadans" for Muslims and Buddhists for Buddhists. Therefore, it was no longer true that everybody in the Indian subcontinent was a Hindu. There were more religious groups now Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and the new entrant Christians.

It would be wrong, in my opinion, to argue that the British manufactured a religion called "Hinduism" which I have seen some seriously argue. The British actually were more precise than the Persians, they recognised that not all religions in India were from the Vedic tradition, and differentiated the Vedic traditions from the non-Vedic traditions. The Vedic traditions included Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism and folk traditions, who shared very similar doctrines, shared the same mythology, shared the same scriptures and all traced their lineage back to the Vedas. On the other hand, the Buddhists had distinct doctrines, had a different mythology, different canon of scriptures and traced their lineage back to the Buddha. The same applies to Jainism and Charvaka. Hence, the British were correct to differentiate them. In fact they were already differentiated in Indian tradition itself by Hindus, by designating them "nastika" i.e., non-vedic.

The other problem I have with Sadguru's view is that he agrees that no two Hindus share exactly the same beliefs, but yet insists on them sharing the same epistemology. He says, "We are not a land of believers, we are a land of seekers" I agree to a large extent that Hinduism like other Dharmic religions has a strong emphasis on direct experience, meditation, but it is distinct from Buddhism(I think Sadhguru is channelling more Buddhism here) in that it gives a lot of importance to scriptural authority. This was actually one of the key departure points for the Sramana movement, of which Buddhism and Jainism are members, they denied the authority of the Vedas not exactly because they did not believe it, but they believed in ones own personal and independent investigation and validation through direct experience. Hinduism on the other hand relied strongly on studying scripture and metaphysical discourse, which concerned itself with ultimate questions like Brahman, Atman and Maya. The Buddha saw such metaphysical deliberations as distractions. His approach was more like a physician, if you are suffering from an ailment(suffering) what you need is medicine(8 fold path) not detailed technical knowledge of the how, what and why the disease got there. It is like when I want to use my car, I just drive it to take me where I want to go, I don't need to know the technical details about how it works, how it was a built and by whom.

But in Hinduism the technical details also matter. We have a traditional three-fold approach to learning: Listening, Contemplating and Meditating. We think the Buddhists jump directly to meditating(though in practice Buddhists also have their own tradition of scriptural reading, Gurus and contemplation) but we think this is premature. First, you need a Guru to teach you and initiate you on the path. You need serve the Guru and if the Guru finds you fit after years of service, the Guru teaches you. Then, you contemplate on the teachings the Guru gives you, ask questions and clear doubts. This too can go on for years. When the Guru feels you now have doubtless faith in the teachings, they instructs you in the practices to directly experience the truth yourself.
This Guru parampara(tradition) has been going on for thousands of years is and central to Vedic dharma -- to Hinduism.

In modern times, if you do not have a Guru or do not find a Guru who is fit for you, then scripture can be your Guru. I tried looking for a Guru, and I tested quite a few, but found them all wanting so I have accepted scripture as my Guru. The authority of scripture is not denied anywhere in all of Hindu shastra. It is not denied by a single sect or by a single school. I simply would not know the things that I know, and the detail in which I know them, if it was not for scripture. Therefore, I am indebted to scripture and I try to repay my debt by sharing what I know with others(free of charge) Therefore, I take great objection, when people try to diminish the importance of scripture in Hinduism. Yes, it is not a "religion of the book" it is a religion of thousands of books(albeit with very similar repeating themes) I consider it arrogant when people insist they don't need guru or even scripture, they can do it all by themselves. This is like saying I don't need to read a book on Mathematics or Physics, I can learn all Mathematics and Physics by myself. Only a person with a massive ego-problem can say things like this. I think such people need to humble themselves and appreciate that there is no need to reinvent the wheel, there has been a long tradition of sages/Rishis/gurus going back to prehistory that have already crossed the sea of samsara, and have been compassionate enough to come back and tell us how to do it ourselves. They have created detailed maps and guides to help you. It is only to your detriment to disregard them, I would go as far to say it is foolish.

It is called "Santana Dharma" because it a tradition of knowledge that begins with the Vedas that has carried on since prehistory, and it is not a progressive knowledge like science, where the next generation improves on the knowledge of the previous. It is the same eternal knowledge that has passes on through an unbroken tradition of sages, communicated in different language for different times. Therefore, I insist, Hinduism is our religion. It is my duty as a Hindu, a member of this tradition, to carry on this tradition and to spread this tradition to the rest of the world, as our sages themselves did, taking Hinduism to every corner of the world and declared "Make the whole world Arya" It is is also my duty to protect my religion. I also think it is my duty to protect my holyland of India, the Rishibhumi and Devabhumi, where Hinduism was cultivated. Thus I feel a strong sense of belonging to India too.

Therefore for me Hinduism is very clearly a religion. It is a well-defined worldview, it has well defined epistemology, well defined metaphysics, well defined ethics, well defined soteriology and an unbroken history going back into prehistoric times. I do not take kindly to the recent postmodern deconstructions of my sacred religion, that feel they can freely distort, change and redefine a 10,000 year or more tradition. However, I have immense respect for Sadhguru, and consider him 100 times the man I am, but I respectfully disagree with him here as I think he has unwittingly been drawn into a postmodern narrative, like many modern so-called Secular Hindus are.


This is my view, what are yours?

 

[Shantanu]

Please note I am posting this in the DIR forum because I want this to be a discussion rather than a debate. This means all I want to hear is the views of all current Hindus on this forum, rather than arguments on who is right. If need be, I will post a separate thread in the debate forum if a debate of these contesting view is required.

I request, so we can get an idea of which view is more popular, to like the view that you agree with and do not like views that you do not agree with. Popularity, of course does not prove which view is right, but it does give us an idea which view is more commonly shared on this forum.

I will first begin by sharing the view of this contemporary Guru who I have immense respect for:

I will now share my view and after this I will not defend it or argue it any further, as I want to read others views.

I understand Sadhguru's argument and I have heard it before, but in the manner in which he articulates it sounds more enlightened that it disarms me to some extent. His argument that the word "Hindu" itself is a geographical identity, and we know historically from the times of the Greek and Persians they called us "Hindu" or "Indio" or in the case of Chinese "Hintoo" and the modern term "India" is just another pronunciation. Therefore, if used in this context, he is right even an earthworm born in India is a Hindu Earthworm. He correctly points out that to this very day another word for India is "Hindustan" and even Muslims in India use this term to designate India. To that extent the word "Hindu" is not divisive.

The problem is, is "Hinduism" a religion? If I asked a Muslim, a Christian or even a Jain or a Buddhist(I will leave Sikh, because it is contentious for me) "Is your religion Hinduism?" Of course I would expect them to say "No" This is when insisting that everybody in India is a follower of Hinduism DOES become divisive. Not only that, because it sort of invalidates the faith of more than a billion people who consider their religion "Hinduism" There may well have been a time in the past when "Hindu" was a geographical identity, but it ceased being a geographical identity in modern times. The British who recognised "Hinduism" as a religion, did not use it in a geographical way like the Persians, Greeks or the Chinese did, they used it to designate a particular creed of people who belonged to the Vedic tradition of religions, and differentiated other groups like "Mohammadans" for Muslims and Buddhists for Buddhists. Therefore, it was no longer true that everybody in the Indian subcontinent was a Hindu. There were more religious groups now Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and the new entrant Christians.

It would be wrong, in my opinion, to argue that the British manufactured a religion called "Hinduism" which I have seen some seriously argue. The British actually were more precise than the Persians, they recognised that not all religions in India were from the Vedic tradition, and differentiated the Vedic traditions from the non-Vedic traditions. The Vedic traditions included Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism and folk traditions, who shared very similar doctrines, shared the same mythology, shared the same scriptures and all traced their lineage back to the Vedas. On the other hand, the Buddhists had distinct doctrines, had a different mythology, different canon of scriptures and traced their lineage back to the Buddha. The same applies to Jainism and Charvaka. Hence, the British were correct to differentiate them. In fact they were already differentiated in Indian tradition itself by Hindus, by designating them "nastika" i.e., non-vedic.

The other problem I have with Sadguru's view is that he agrees that no two Hindus share exactly the same beliefs, but yet insists on them sharing the same epistemology. He says, "We are not a land of believers, we are a land of seekers" I agree to a large extent that Hinduism like other Dharmic religions has a strong emphasis on direct experience, meditation, but it is distinct from Buddhism(I think Sadhguru is channelling more Buddhism here) in that it gives a lot of importance to scriptural authority. This was actually one of the key departure points for the Sramana movement, of which Buddhism and Jainism are members, they denied the authority of the Vedas not exactly because they did not believe it, but they believed in ones own personal and independent investigation and validation through direct experience. Hinduism on the other hand relied strongly on studying scripture and metaphysical discourse, which concerned itself with ultimate questions like Brahman, Atman and Maya. The Buddha saw such metaphysical deliberations as distractions. His approach was more like a physician, if you are suffering from an ailment(suffering) what you need is medicine(8 fold path) not detailed technical knowledge of the how, what and why the disease got there. It is like when I want to use my car, I just drive it to take me where I want to go, I don't need to know the technical details about how it works, how it was a built and by whom.

But in Hinduism the technical details also matter. We have a traditional three-fold approach to learning: Listening, Contemplating and Meditating. We think the Buddhists jump directly to meditating(though in practice Buddhists also have their own tradition of scriptural reading, Gurus and contemplation) but we think this is premature. First, you need a Guru to teach you and initiate you on the path. You need serve the Guru and if the Guru finds you fit after years of service, the Guru teaches you. Then, you contemplate on the teachings the Guru gives you, ask questions and clear doubts. This too can go on for years. When the Guru feels you now have doubtless faith in the teachings, they instructs you in the practices to directly experience the truth yourself.
This Guru parampara(tradition) has been going on for thousands of years is and central to Vedic dharma -- to Hinduism.

In modern times, if you do not have a Guru or do not find a Guru who is fit for you, then scripture can be your Guru. I tried looking for a Guru, and I tested quite a few, but found them all wanting so I have accepted scripture as my Guru. The authority of scripture is not denied anywhere in all of Hindu shastra. It is not denied by a single sect or by a single school. I simply would not know the things that I know, and the detail in which I know them, if it was not for scripture. Therefore, I am indebted to scripture and I try to repay my debt by sharing what I know with others(free of charge) Therefore, I take great objection, when people try to diminish the importance of scripture in Hinduism. Yes, it is not a "religion of the book" it is a religion of thousands of books(albeit with very similar repeating themes) I consider it arrogant when people insist they don't need guru or even scripture, they can do it all by themselves. This is like saying I don't need to read a book on Mathematics or Physics, I can learn all Mathematics and Physics by myself. Only a person with a massive ego-problem can say things like this. I think such people need to humble themselves and appreciate that there is no need to reinvent the wheel, there has been a long tradition of sages/Rishis/gurus going back to prehistory that have already crossed the sea of samsara, and have been compassionate enough to come back and tell us how to do it ourselves. They have created detailed maps and guides to help you. It is only to your detriment to disregard them, I would go as far to say it is foolish.

It is called "Santana Dharma" because it a tradition of knowledge that begins with the Vedas that has carried on since prehistory, and it is not a progressive knowledge like science, where the next generation improves on the knowledge of the previous. It is the same eternal knowledge that has passes on through an unbroken tradition of sages, communicated in different language for different times. Therefore, I insist, Hinduism is our religion. It is my duty as a Hindu, a member of this tradition, to carry on this tradition and to spread this tradition to the rest of the world, as our sages themselves did, taking Hinduism to every corner of the world and declared "Make the whole world Arya" It is is also my duty to protect my religion. I also think it is my duty to protect my holyland of India, the Rishibhumi and Devabhumi, where Hinduism was cultivated. Thus I feel a strong sense of belonging to India too.

Therefore for me Hinduism is very clearly a religion. It is a well-defined worldview, it has well defined epistemology, well defined metaphysics, well defined ethics, well defined soteriology and an unbroken history going back into prehistoric times. I do not take kindly to the recent postmodern deconstructions of my sacred religion, that feel they can freely distort, change and redefine a 10,000 year or more tradition. However, I have immense respect for Sadhguru, and consider him 100 times the man I am, but I respectfully disagree with him here as I think he has unwittingly been drawn into a postmodern narrative, like many modern so-called Secular Hindus are.


This is my view, what are yours?

This is a very good question, and it is best addressed step by step. First, is there such a thing as Hinduism beyond the geographical dimension? In other words is there something philosophical about it?

In my view there is such a thing as Hinduism. It is however not a religion because a religion requires fixed beliefs and practices that all adherents go by. This requirement is not fulfilled as a common feature of all Hindus which are on the other hand incredibly diverse in their beliefs and practices.

So if it is not a religion what is Hinduism in a nutshell? Who are the Hindus?

Hinduism is a way of life that is based on freethinking that generates particular modes of existence, in which each individual seeks to derive the knowledge that he or she is capable of or that which life teaches him or her and on this basis he or she conducts practices consistent with those beliefs derived from direct experience that continually adapts, changes and refocuses on the knowledge and practices as life goes on. It has the entirety of Indian scripture to consult if necessary or not to consult any of it. It contains within it religions but not all of those are fixed in stone as different conceptions spring up from among adherents to any given religion and give rise to other religions. The flexibility to think afresh and determine one’s own future is the central feature of Hinduism. That is the philosophy of Hinduism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If I may, due to want of space in my previous post, I want to add a bit to it. This is not a response to the previous post, but a continuation of responding to Sadhguru's argument. Sadhuguru says Hinduism has no single founder, single book, single set of beliefs or practices or papacy to enforce it. This is true, but this often get misinterpreted by some Hindus, of the Secular and postmodern variety, to mean Hinduism is a free-for-all, believe anything you want, do anything you want like some anarchic spirituality and actually consider this a virtue. Something we should proudly accept, celebrate and promote. It is sort of like when hippies come to India and see the chaos of India, cows walking about on the road, people not following road rules, littering everywhere, the seeming total lack of rules and regulations --- as a virtue. Meanwhile, Indians themselves bemoan it.

This postmodern anarchistic narrative of Hinduism is no virtue at all. It means Hinduism becomes a disorganised mess, an amorphous mass of everything and the kitchen sink, too individualistic that every individual gives you a different version of it, that it can longer be generalised to a wider people and then you cannot convert people to it(which is what our Rishis wanted) and everybody remains perpetually confused what it is. So, there is obvious something fatally wrong with this narrative. It is "postmodern" because it a very recent contemporary interpretation. Hinduism was not defined like this in the past. This is why I insist on Hindus to not be brainwashed by postmodern narratives. Look at how Hinduism has always been defined and practised and you will find it is actually a very coherent well defined worldview.

No single founder: Actually a succession of founders that we call Rishis(sages) A tradition of sadhus, rishis, munis, gurus, sants who have repeated the same teachings through the ages. Even in the Rig Veda itself, it mentions the "ancients" that is even at that time Hinduism was not a new, but ancient religion. This is why we rightfully call it Sanatana dharma

No single book: Actually, an accepted tradition of Sruti and Smriti. The original Vedas being the Sruti, and it was called as such because it was an oral tradition that was not written down for ages. It was like the song of the whales, it was passed down through the ages perfectly. The later tradition when it was written down is called Smrti. There is no restriction on how many Smritis you have, even Ramana Maharishi, called a "Rishi" because he has written new Smritis. The only condition is the Smriti should be in agreement with Sruti. If is not not in agreement it is rejected. Hence, we would not consider the Bible or the Quran acceptable as our books.

No single set of beliefs: This one is clearly wrong. We get our set of beliefs from the founders and from the scriptures they wrote and then from the Smriti. I have read literally hundreds of scriptures across several traditions Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Smarta and misc. I read the main texts of all the six philosophical schools. I have also read the shastras from technical fields like Ayurveda, Artha, Niti, Kama etc. I find in them up to 20 core beliefs that repeat across or are major. These include: Atman, Brahman, Maya, Ishvara, Samsara, Lokas, Dharma, Karma, Moksha, Yoga, Guru, Tattvas, Pramanas. Most of these are differentiating beliefs by which you can identify a Hindu.

No single set of practices: This one also is clearly wrong. The practice part of Hinduism is called "Yoga" and every school of Hinduism prescribes Yoga as a necessary and preliminary means to Moksha. Practice is necessary, not optional. Hinduism is not just belief. Yoga is required for purification of mind. Yoga includes every limb of spiritual practice you can think of: yamas, niyamas, tirtha, svadhyaya, bhakti, karma, tapas, saucha, asanas, pranayamas, dharanas, dhyana, samadhi. Tantra, consisting of yantra, mantra, puja, kiryas --- everything you can think of as a practice is covered.

No papacy: Yes, there is no single central overarching clergy that can dictate to all Hindus, but that does not mean a Hindu can do whatever they want. Hinduism has hundreds of papacies. It has hundreds of organizations (samapradayas) and they do have a hierarchy of clergy from top to bottom. There is a central head of the organisation like a pope, and then people below them, right to bottom of neophytes. The central head dictates everything from what you wear, how you live, who you worship to even small details about your life. You also have obligations, which can include monetary donations. There are too many to name Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Aghora, Advaita Vedanta(with Maths and a succession of Sankacharyas) Nathas, Shaiva Siddhanta, Kashmir Shaivism, Kriya Yoga. As well modern ones Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya Mission, Sivananda tradition.
If you seriously think you can turn up in one of these organisations, and do whatever you want you are in for a very rude awakening.

The freedom in Hinduism is to choose your samapradaya but once you choose it the books, beliefs, practices and conduct, to what you wear and eat is all dictated.

 

[Vinayaka]

SW, I've done my reading in the past on this topic, and find most of what I read these days to be redundant. In my view Hinduism is definitely a religion, but as with everything else, the definition of religion given by other faiths doesn't really suit us, as you sort of indicated.

I read once where the idea of classifying ourselves as a religion came about as a political move just to get some of the same rights as those groups classified as religions, in the west.

So just as Ramakrishna Mission at one time declared themselves non-Hindu in India to merely obtain some of the same rights as the secular government had bestowed on non-Hindu religions, so too is it largely a declaration just to get rights.

An example I've heard of is in land rezoning. Some local governments have provisions for selling or leasing land at cheaper rates to charitable foundations or religious organisations. So when a Hindu group applied for some land, there was an application form that asked, "Is your group a religious group?" and the temple builders had to think about it, so the application was refused.

So you can see why it's to our legal benefit, when dealing with that other paradigm, to declare ourselves a religion, if nothing else but to get the same rights.

Just as marriage laws has come to include common-law marriage to give rights to individuals that don't have religious marriages, so too is it fair for Hindus and others to be classified as religions.

 

[Vinayaka]

Maybe we need to start referring to ourselves as a set of religions.

 

[sayak83]

Maybe we need to start referring to ourselves as a set of religions.

It's not our fault that religion is so much more a narrower term than dharma.
Hinduism is not a religion in the same sense that a wheel is not a spoke. Religion is a very important element of Hinduism, and hence it necessarily has the right to demand the freedoms and rights that other "mere" religions enjoy. But saying it's only a religion is to amputate it. We should call it dharma as long and as persistently as necessary to get the term into the Western lexicon. To operate under the assumption that every important Asian concept has a satisfactory cognate in the Latin languages is to accept that there is nothing truly radically novel that we have to contribute in the conversation and it's all just a matter of translation. That is both false and an aspect of colonial mindset.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's not our fault that religion is so much more a narrower term than dharma.

Yes, the term 'dharma' is making slow but sure inroads into the western mindset, just as karma did before it.
So too is the term 'religion' expanding to be more inclusive, just as the term 'God' did before it.
Both are happening simultaneously. Progress is progress.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, the term 'dharma' is making slow but sure inroads into the western mindset, just as karma did before it.
So too is the term 'religion' expanding to be more inclusive, just as the term 'God' did before it.
Both are happening simultaneously. Progress is progress.

I think the main sticking point is the relationship between state and religion. A state should not promote a specific religion (like buddhism, vaisnavism, saivism, islam, communism) but a state must avow to and promote dharma. Christianity and Islam usually has no clue (and deliberately so) on how to do the latter without also doing the former, but Hinduism (and Buddhism etc) does. That kind of matters in the modern world.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think the main sticking point is the relationship between state and religion. A state should not promote a specific religion (like buddhism, vaisnavism, saivism, islam, communism) but a state must avow to and promote dharma. Christianity and Islam usually has no clue (and deliberately so) on how to do the latter without also doing the former, but Hinduism (and Buddhism etc) does. That kind of matters in the modern world.

No idea what you're talking about, or how it applies to the OP.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, the term 'dharma' is making slow but sure inroads into the western mindset, just as karma did before it.

But I hope the extent of 'dharma' being misused was limited to the tv show "Dharma & Greg".

I think it's too late to rehabilitate and reclaim mantra. I want to hurl when I see a tv ad in which the actor says that something is his man-tra, pronounced like the word for a human male.

 

[sayak83]

No idea what you're talking about, or how it applies to the OP.

Sorry, typing in the phone from an airport...
What should be the proper relationship between a state and religion as against state and dharma? Does the question makes sense?

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I believe Hinduism is a religion or collection of religions. Regardless of how the terminology developed it is used to describe a collection of beliefs and mindsets that are distinct from other beliefs and mindsets. I think when we hesitate to call it a religion, we leave the door open for proselytizing and we diminish the importance those beliefs and ideas have for us. We have Gods, daily rituals outside those "necessary" for daily living, houses of worship, scriptures and although not centralized, we have many religious leaders. I think that constitutes a religion in my book.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sorry, typing in the phone from an airport...
What should be the proper relationship between a state and religion as against state and dharma? Does the question makes sense?

Sorry, I still have no clue what this has to do with the OP, which was .... Is Hinduism a religion?" As far as I can see there is no mention of states or governments in the OP at all. I see politics and religion as separate themes.

 

[sayak83]

Sorry, I still have no clue what this has to do with the OP, which was .... Is Hinduism a religion?" As far as I can see there is no mention of states or governments in the OP at all. I see politics and religion as separate themes.

I do not. Hinduism has much to say about socio-political principles of a state. Mahabharata, arthashastra etc.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not. Hinduism has much to say about socio-political principles of a state. Mahabharata, arthashastra etc.

But the question was "Is Hinduism a religion?"

But I give up. If you want to explore how politics and region are interrelated, why not start a thread on that?

@OP. In my opinion, Hinduism is definitely a religion.

 

[sayak83]

But the question was "Is Hinduism a religion?"

But I give up. If you want to explore how politics and region are interrelated, why not start a thread on that?

@OP. In my opinion, Hinduism is definitely a religion.

The point I was trying to make is that so much of Hinduism is also devoted to the theory and praxis of politics, ethics, social and ecological pronciples, epistemology and methods of scientific investigation, ontology, linguistics and theory of meaning that calling it only a religion is to do it disservice.

 

[sayak83]

Sorry I forgot to mention poetics, music theory, theory on aesthetics and art, theory of play, theory of love and lovr making.....

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I think it is rather easy to resolve. Hinduism is a religion, that also promotes material knowledge(aparavidya) like linguistics, music theory, astronomy, physics, politics and economics, drama and aesthetics, logic and epistemology etc In addition to spiritual knowledge like Atman, Brahman, Maya etc(paravidya) also known as Brahma vidya or Atma vidya. This is not surprising, because we are a religion that recognise the purusharthas, which include material fields like kama, artha and dharma and science and technology or anivikshiki is necessary for their attainment. There are 64 kalas, four upavedas and 14 vidyas, which include medicine, military science, architecture and engineering, prosody, mathematics, metallurgy, gemology, military war, all sorts of arts and crafts --- or in other words every science you can think of.

However, they are not "secular" because they are very deeply tied in with the Hindu religion. First of all, you should understand how they came into being with the early ritualistic religion of the Vedas. The need to perform rituals sacrifices properly in alignment with seasons and the stars, gave rise to Jyotish or astrology. The need to design the altars to the correct specifications gave rise to ganita or geometry. The need to settle debates and discussions about the meaning of rituals etc gave rise to Nyaya or logic and debate. Then from the early spirit medicine of the Atharveda which was based on mantra incantations to cure diseases and also the use of herbs, came Ayurveda. The need to transmit the mantras perfectly from one generation to the other gave rise to chanda or prosody/music theory. The need to correctly understand the the meaning of mantras gave rise to vyakarana or grammar. The need for ritual purity gave rise to dharma shastra or code of law. Later, these sciences became more refined Jyotish became golavidya(astronomy) Geometry gave rise to other branches of mathematics like algebra, trigonometry, calculus. Nyaya developed into pramana shastra or epistemology. Vedic medicine developed into Ayurveda consisting of 8 departments, retaining the early Vedic medicine as bhuta-vidya, and adding surgery, rejuvenation, paediatrics, toxicology, ear, eye and nose medicine, internal medicine and sex therapy. Vyakarana, got refined further into linguistics and semantics. Dharma shastra became Arthashastra or politics and economics.

Here is what is interesting to note. The Hindu sciences never separated from the Hindu religion, in the way the Greek sciences separated from Homeric religion and became independent fields. In fact the Hindus sciences are very deeply interwoven with it. For example Ayurveda would not be considered scientific medicine by Western medicine, why? Because it includes spirit medicineas a branch, using mantra, gems and even astrology as a means to cure. Its metaphysics is also based on Samkhya, the guna theory of Samkhya becomes the dosha theory of imbalances in Ayurveda, where each dosha is made up of the 5 elements, Vata(space and air) pitta(fire and water) kapha(water and earth). The distinction between purusha and prakriti is another spiritual aspect that Western medicine would never accept.

Nyaya and Vaiseshika would never be accepted as logic and physics by Western logic and physics. Why? Because Nyaya and Vaiseshika are both premised on moksha, that is they studied not for their own sake, but to help the soul attain moksha. Their only purpose is to give tattva jnana so that we can discriminate(viveka) the soul from the body and material elements. They prove using analysis and logic, that the soul is not the body.

In the same way Arthashastra is not there for its own sake, it is their to fulfil the first goals karma and artha in our life, so that we can be ready for moksha later.

Therefore, we should not confuse the Hindu sciences with secular sciences. I don't buy this whole "secular" thing to be honest. Secular assumes materialism as a default worldview. When in fact, our worldview is Hinduism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Just to add, there is a tendency that exists among us Hindus, and I know it, because I did it myself, to reinterpret Hindu scientific concepts to make them fit modern Western scientific concepts. By doing so we are seeking legitimacy or to be validated by Modern Western science. So for example we will interpret Brahman as quantum field, we will interpret Maya as energy or holographic principle, chakras and nadis becomes nerves and hormones; 5 elements became elementary particles; manas and chitta becomes brain and lokas become planets. It is no different to how the Arya Samaaj tried to validate Vedas by looking for steam engines, electricity and airships in them.

To those Hindus I say, and I am saying this, because I did it myself, you don't need validation by the West. Hindu civilisation is far older and greater than Western civilisation. We have our own worldview, our own theories and practices. Recognising and asserting those differences is very key to asserting your Hindu identity. This is the crux of what Malhotra argues in "Being Different" No charkas and nadis are not nerves and hormones, they are energy pathways in the pranic-body. Brahman is not a quantum field, Brahman is an infinite field of consciousness; the 5 elements are not elementary particles, they are the basic sensory potentials that produce our sensory world. They are far more finer than quarks or any material unit we have discovered today. Manas and Chitta is not brain, rather the brain is just the gross manifestation(goloka) of them. Lokas are not planets, they are other realms of existence.

Hindu science is ahead of Western science. I can say that boldly, because Western science is starting to discover the same things that Hindu science propounds. But because these things contradict the basic assumptions Western materialist science has made, they cause schisms in Western science e.g. Reincarnation, astral body, other dimensions, ESP etc which fields like parapsychology can positively assert to be real, are rejected by the rest of mainstream science because it contradicts the foundation assumptions of Western science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just to add, there is a tendency that exists among us Hindus, and I know it, because I did it myself, to reinterpret Hindu scientific concepts to make them fit modern Western scientific concepts. By doing so we are seeking legitimacy or to be validated by Modern Western science. So for example we will interpret Brahman as quantum field, we will interpret Maya as energy or holographic principle, chakras and nadis becomes nerves and hormones; 5 elements became elementary particles; manas and chitta becomes brain and lokas become planets. It is no different to how the Arya Samaaj tried to validate Vedas by looking for steam engines, electricity and airships in them.

You did what you did and then decided to change your views. That is immaterial. I do not seek any legitimacy from science for Hinduism. I only see the similarity between Hindu thought and modern science, marvel at it and acknowledge it. I do not know if there is anything wrong in that. Yes, I find the idea of Brahman in Hinduism the same as the idea of space/energy in science. I do not believe in chakras, nadis, kundalini, conciousness (which I consider a property of physical brain and which gets destroyed at death), manas and chitta as elements, lokas other than stars and their planets and those rocky/icy things revolving around suns and their planets, reincarnation, astral body, other dimensions, ESP, etc. I consider all that as pseudo-science, prapsychology and paranormal. We have a separate forum for all those unscientific things in RF. I believe Arya Samaj is the worst interpreter of Vedas.