Let' s change Hindu back to Santan [Vaidic] Dharma

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste, dear Hindus

So... the point made is -- that Hindu is the name given to "People on the other side of the Sindhu [river]" by Persian Muslim war-lords who invaded Bhārat and practically tried to ruin her . They could not pronounce the S apparently. Shrila Prabhupād explained this (A. C. Bhaktivedānta Swām&#299.

[However, non-Bhāratīya ISKCON devotees have a few more reasons to not append Hindu, and they find this appealing. That is their problem .]

Recently, there have been some successful name changes [geo-political] back to the ugam - root, source, from the British distortions .

Bombay ---> back to Mumbai
Calcutta --> back to Kolkattā
Madrās ----> back to Chennai
Banglore ---> back to Bengalluru and so on,

so India officially back to Bhārat (in English, internationally) is doable. Lot of Software changes, mainly.

What about Hindu back to Sanātan Dharma or Sanātan Vaidic Dharma (not Vedic, it is Vaidic).

Here, it is not just the dog-work or donkey-work of
*conveying to the world, and
*modifying software widgets that have "India" and Hindu" in their databases (and hence in the pull-down menus),
*official government forms, Visa forms, international race-ethnicity forms, (particularly printed, outdated ones can be a problem)...
*Worse, getting all others to do so (the fastest will be the airlines and airports).

It is about convincing the religious, dhārmic, santa-manḍaḷ ---> TO ---> politicians, country leaders, administrators, civil service personnel
but mainly, the people.

After all Bhārat is technically supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a different story that currently it is NOT

The ones who I see adding deliberate obstacles to such a project are the political-fanatical-Muslims who have this SICK SICKENING agenda of tilting the demographics in their favour and change history. Actually sicker still are the "avyakta (unmanifest invisible) world POWERS" behind the so-called Muslims .

Comments? Other than calling this thread outright stupid? (That is not allowed)

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I don't think it makes any difference what India (Bharat) or Hindu (Sanatana Dharma) is called.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now, I do not want to choose the fourth option, but at least in this thread you are acting like crazy. I do not find any problem with either Hindu or India. The religion that main-line Hindus follow is not Vedic dharma. Only just Vishnu, a minor Vedic God, has been adopted from there. I am a Kamboja, not strictly Aryan (in the line of Sage Upamanyu who has a hymn in RigVeda on Soma. He was not the writer of the whole hymn but he is mentioned along with other writers), but many a times we were clubbed with Aryans. Aryans accepted Hindu dharma, the indigenous religion. Why should I try to undo something which my forebears accepted.

Just vote for Narendra Modi if you want a resurgence of Hindu dharma and leave your insistence on Vedic. Now Vedic is in Hinduism and nowhere else in the world. Trying to reignite old worship is futile, the Western Pagans have tried it without much success.

 

[ameyAtmA]

The religion that main-line Hindus follow is not Vedic dharma. ....

He was not the writer of the whole hymn but he is mentioned along with other writers), but many a times we were clubbed with Aryans. Aryans accepted Hindu dharma, the indigenous religion. Why should I try to undo something which my forebears accepted.

Just vote for Narendra Modi if you want a resurgence of Hindu dharma and leave your insistence on Vedic. Now Vedic is in Hinduism and nowhere else in the world. Trying to reignite old worship is futile, the Western Pagans have tried it without much success.

I have given you the option of "Sanātan Dharma" -- eternal way of [righteous] existence -- a word which occurs in our scriptures.

And by the way, Ārya means gentleman . Not "Āryans" . Back in the tretā yug Kausalyā, Sumitra and Kaikeyi addressed their husband Dasharath as "ārya" , and many queens called their kings "ārya-putra" (Son of an ārya).

[A request: Please let us not divert this thread with any "A is for Āryan" theories .]

 

[ameyAtmA]

I don't think it makes any difference what India (Bharat) or Hindu (Sanatana Dharma) is called.

Om Namah Shivaya

Not to you (remember not everyone has attained nirvāṇa), but the reason to do so would be partly the same as changing Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai -- back to the roots .
This is geo-political distortion that the British had made, and we fixed it.

However, Hindu, if it is truly not our dharma's original identification, and a name concocted by the violent Persian Muslims that attacked and invaded Bhārat, then, it is one reason to go back to roots -- again , not for you, but for the future generations here on earth .

Now, some people want to tear it up : (particularly ISKCON already has)

"I follow Veda, Vedānta (upanishad, araṇyak), bramha-sūtra, itihās, purāṇ, some pancharātra, some āgama, some tantra texts (like Gautamīya tantra), I acknowledge and follow the āchārya of the 4 authentic vaishṇav sampradāy....

BUT I AM NOT HINDU"

What is this? Partly using the Sindhu-Hindu logic as an excuse to run away from the variegatedness of Hindu Dharma traditions that they are averse to and want nothing to do with , or not associate with them . [Speak of spiritual variegatedness in the spiritual sky, but the material-laukik-dhārmic-spiritual variegatedness here on earth is not ok ?]

Ironically, though, I admire their stand for seeking the original, and my respect for ISKCON and its founder remains achala -- they have a point . Our dharma is not originally called thus . Recently someone argued that "Kṛshṇa does not use the word Hindu nor does Vedavyās so why should I? I am a follower of His Yoga, and Kṛshṇa is for everyone, not just 'Hindus' " Of course she meant "not just Bhāratīyas" -- but see the overlap and confusion there?

 

[Stormcry]

On Indian government papers , Hinduism is described as the religion based on veda . I don't know whether hinduism's original name vaidik dharma is mentioned or not .

In fact , our dharma is nameless . It's not vaidik or sanatana . Vedik or santana dharma words are not mentioned in any scripture , as a perticular set of belief or religion . However Hindu/sindu is much older than vaidik or sanatana dharma .

Besides , Hindu is not the effect of persian practice . Because both S and H are found in persian languages . This change of H from S has no any proper proof .

Hindu is formed with a close connection with bharatavarsha .

Hindus themselves created the Hindu word .

Hindu word is derived from geological condiction of bharatavarsha . In puranas , Bharatavarsha is described as a region between Himalaya and Bindu water ( South ocean ) . Hindu word is formed by joining Hiof Himalaya and Indu of Bindu ocean .

So the definations are very clear .

Hindu : one whose Homeland is Bharatavarsha ( Note exceptions : Mlecchas . Before kaliyuga , there weren no mlecchas in BharataVarsha )

Hindu Dharma : Hindu's Dharma ie It is the dharma based on Veda and vaidik scriptures like puranas.


Hari Om

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Not to you (remember not everyone has attained nirvāṇa), but the reason to do so would be partly the same as changing Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai -- back to the roots .
This is geo-political distortion that the British had made, and we fixed it.

However, Hindu, if it is truly not our dharma's original identification, and a name concocted by the violent Persian Muslims that attacked and invaded Bhārat, then, it is one reason to go back to roots -- again , not for you, but for the future generations here on earth .

Now, some people want to tear it up : (particularly ISKCON already has)

"I follow Veda, Vedānta (upanishad, araṇyak), bramha-sūtra, itihās, purāṇ, some pancharātra, some āgama, some tantra texts (like Gautamīya tantra), I acknowledge and follow the āchārya of the 4 authentic vaishṇav sampradāy....

BUT I AM NOT HINDU"

What is this? Partly using the Sindhu-Hindu logic as an excuse to run away from the variegatedness of Hindu Dharma traditions that they are averse to and want nothing to do with , or not associate with them . [Speak of spiritual variegatedness in the spiritual sky, but the material-laukik-dhārmic-spiritual variegatedness here on earth is not ok ?]

Ironically, though, I admire their stand for seeking the original, and my respect for ISKCON and its founder remains achala -- they have a point . Our dharma is not originally called thus . Recently someone argued that "Kṛshṇa does not use the word Hindu nor does Vedavyās so why should I? I am a follower of His Yoga, and Kṛshṇa is for everyone, not just 'Hindus' " Of course she meant "not just Bhāratīyas" -- but see the overlap and confusion there?

I wouldn't mind it if Varanasi was called Kashi instead, but it doesn't matter...

...and no, I have not attained Nirvana. That was just more mithya playing around with me.

I figured that if I had attained Nirvana, it would be pretty...consistant, not 'on and off' like a light switch.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Stormcry]

Dear ameyatma ,

SO just remember this :

Whose : Hindu's

What : Vaidik

How : Sanatana

To know something real about Hindu word , Read the work done by MH Pahuja. www.b-i-f.com/Hindu.pdf‎

On Indian government papers , Hinduism is described as the religion based on veda . I don't know whether hinduism's original name vaidik dharma is mentioned or not .

In fact , our dharma is nameless . It's not vaidik or sanatana . Vedik or santana dharma words are not mentioned in any scripture , as a perticular set of belief or religion . However Hindu/sindu is much older than vaidik or sanatana dharma .

Besides , Hindu is not the effect of persian practice . Because both S and H are found in persian languages . This change of H from S has no any proper proof .

Hindu is formed with a close connection with bharatavarsha .

Hindus themselves created the Hindu word .

Hindu word is derived from geological condiction of bharatavarsha . In puranas , Bharatavarsha is described as a region between Himalaya and Bindu water ( South ocean ) . Hindu word is formed by joining Hiof Himalaya and Indu of Bindu ocean .

So the definations are very clear .

Hindu : one whose Homeland is Bharatavarsha ( Note exceptions : Mlecchas . Before kaliyuga , there weren no mlecchas in BharataVarsha )

Hindu Dharma : Hindu's Dharma ie It is the dharma based on Veda and vaidik scriptures like puranas.

Jai Narayana Hari HARI

 

[ameyAtmA]

Thanks for the link and all your input, HLK.

Yes, the statement about Himālaya and Bindu sarovar -- the ISKCON research paper finds a problem in that too for some reason .

There is at least one upanishad (and I would think even the bhāgvat) that says something on the lines of ...
atha/sah dharmah/dharmo sanātanah: (this secret of existence, is the eternal [truth]). If I find it, shall bring the ref.

The thing is, now we are overflowing from the geo boundaries, and perhaps the desha (nation) kāla (era) pātra (candidate) factors need to be considered as our dharma teaches us to.

However, if Hindu is indeed the right word, then so be it .

om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya

 

[Stormcry]

There is at least one upanishad (and I would think even the bhāgvat) that says something on the lines of ...
atha/sah dharmah/dharmo sanātanah: (this secret of existence, is the eternal [truth]). If I find it, shall bring the ref.

But It doesn't mention sanatana dharma as a religion or a certain belief . So that assumption is totally wrong.

In Sanskrit, sanatana dharma is everlasting duty ie everydays duty prescribed for a whole life. Sanatana dharma could be anything. It can be anything eg varna dharma can also be mentioned as sanatana dharma to indicate that man should follow varna dharma eternally.

In fact, our hindu vedic dharma is nameless. In ancient times, it was identified just by a name dharma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Carry on, you two.

 

[ameyAtmA]

But It doesn't mention sanatana dharma as a religion or a certain belief . So that assumption is totally wrong.

In Sanskrit, sanatana dharma is everlasting duty ie everydays duty prescribed for a whole life. Sanatana dharma could be anything. It can be anything eg varna dharma can also be mentioned as sanatana dharma to indicate that man should follow varna dharma eternally.

In fact, our hindu vedic dharma is nameless. In ancient times, it was identified just by a name dharma.

Sanātan dharma is ... a dharma which is sanātan . It is the eternal nature of ātmā - sacchidānanda.

I don't think "for a whole life" or "varna dharma" can be termed sanātana, because this bāhya (outward) dharma (such as varṇa dharma) ceases to apply after a certain point - it is applicable as long as the body is around and/or the mind is around or moksha is not acheived .

What is sanātan is the ātmā and reveling in it .

However, I do get your point about not having a name.

The only thing is, not having a name because it is so infinitely accomodating, all-encompassing, makes it ineligible for certain rules or advantages - like it did recently. Support [of some kind] from the government will be given for a religious institution that qualifies for such and sucḥ...
The argument was, Christian and Muslim institutions may qualify, but this is not applicable for Hindu Temples because "ours is not a religion, it is a way of life" Therefore, the constitutional rule/law is N/A (not applicable)

This is why we need a name.

A santa said on TV "Ham sāgar hai, kuaa nahi hai, theek hai mānte hai. Haṃsa hai, anya pakshi nahi hai. Par hai na? Astitva to hai na? Ham sagar hai iskā matlab ye nahi ki kisikā bhi kuchh bhi [nonsense] sahe."

 

[Stormcry]

Sanātan dharma is ... a dharma which is sanātan . It is the eternal nature of ātmā - sacchidānanda.

Pranam Prabhu...

I think you are mixing up dharma and nature of soul. Dharma remains as long as soul has body. I think you know that atma is Upadhiless. He is non-doer. So soul has no any dharma or any other duty. It is inactive. It is sat chit ananda. It is not sat chit dharma ananda.

Even in sanatana dharma , there is misconception. As soul is beyond dharma, sanatana dharma doesn't mean that dharma is eternal. Dharma gives us eternality, it gives us sanatana existence. That's why sanatana dharma.

Vedas reach upto that soul or bramhan by negating all things . So what do you think Dharma is exception ?


I have one question. Why should we need adjectives before dharma word ? Is dharma name not sufficient ?

The person who follows dharma, is called as " Dharmavat " . So whatever you call hindu or vaidik, It's only dharma.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Now, I do not want to choose the fourth option, but at least in this thread you are acting like crazy. I do not find any problem with either Hindu or India. The religion that main-line Hindus follow is not Vedic dharma. Only just Vishnu, a minor Vedic God, has been adopted from there. I am a Kamboja, not strictly Aryan (in the line of Sage Upamanyu who has a hymn in RigVeda on Soma. He was not the writer of the whole hymn but he is mentioned along with other writers), but many a times we were clubbed with Aryans. Aryans accepted Hindu dharma, the indigenous religion. Why should I try to undo something which my forebears accepted.

I don't want to go all MV on you, but...
HYMN XXX. Viśvedevas.
1. NOT one of you, ye Gods, is small, none of you is a feeble child:
All of you, verily, are great.
2 Thus be ye lauded, ye destroyers of the foe, ye Three-and-Thirty Deities,
The Gods of man, the Holy Ones.
3 As such defend and succour us, with benedictions speak to us:
Lead us not from our fathers' and from Manu's path into the distance far away.
4 Ye Deities who stay with us, and all ye Gods of all mankind,
Give us your wide protection, give shelter for cattle and for steed.

 

[ameyAtmA]

praṇām

Dharma gives us eternality, it gives us sanatana existence. That's why sanatana dharma.

Good point Prabhu

I have one question. Why should we need adjectives before dharma word ? Is dharma name not sufficient ?

The person who follows dharma, is called as " Dharmavat " . So whatever you call hindu or vaidik, It's only dharma.

Yes, this is true. However, that does not make other "religions" adharmic.

The beauty is -- Our dharma is infact a form of Nārāyaṇ Himself, infinite ocean, generous, gracious, embracing, the Mother .

And, thanks Jaskaran, for bringing the Ṛg in . We have Purusha Sūkta for Nārāyaṇ and Rudra for Rudra, that itself shows heavy links back to the Veda. In fact shrimad bhāgvat (alongside padma, vishṇu etc.) is an unfoldment of the Veda and Gita is the milk of the Vedānta (upanishads). Even āgama are connected to Veda.
"Vedānām sāma vedosmi" says Shri Kṛshṇa (BG chap 10) and
Sāma = Ṛg ṛchī + shāstrīya sangeet melody - sāma gāyan .


Jai Shri Kṛshṇa

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't want to go all MV on you, but...

You know Vishnu has just six hymns in his name in RigVeda whereas Indra 289, Agni 218, Soma 123, Vishvadevas 70, the Asvins 56, Varuna 46. Rigvedic deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does not in anyway diminish today's Vishnu in Hinduism, the source of Dashavataras, including Rama and Krishna. He has taken the three steps and now encompasses the Heavens, the Earth, and the Hell. Yes, they are all Gods and Goddesses and they are ours.

 

[Stormcry]

Aupmanyav is a person who sees difference between veda and purana. But He doesn't know that author of veda himself says that puranas are non-different from Veda. Ithihasa & Purana are fifth Veda.
For him God agni is greater than krishna. But he doesnt know that agni is just the the lord of panchabhuta ( Agni ) , not the supreme god or absolute bramhan like krishna.

Agni is called as Devata , while krishna or shiva are called as Bhagavan


Hari Krishna

 

[Stormcry]

Another thing !

Lord agni or Indra are not Moksha givers like vishnu, shiva or Ganesha. Because I didn't find any incident in purana wherein indra or agni gives moksha to someone .

I didn't say that one shouldn't worship devatas. They should be. Generally they are worshipped during Yadnyas. We should worship them. Because Lord vishnu himself says in Gita " Person should not give up yadnya, Dan and Tapa. They purifies the mind. "

 

[Poeticus]

You know Vishnu has just six hymns in his name in RigVeda whereas Indra 289, Agni 218, Soma 123, Vishvadevas 70, the Asvins 56, Varuna 46. Rigvedic deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's purely an Indological route, which holds a faulty line when it comes to VedAn~ga related theological schools, all of which profess that the "current" form of the Veda-s are "redacted" - that, once upon a time, many years ago, there were numerous, and I mean quite numerous, Sukta-s that were lost. The "current" form, especially that of the Rg-Veda, is a collection of "scattered" hymns that "survived". Thus, we do not know for sure how many hymns each Deva & Devi originally were ascribed.

Besides, the Rg-Veda nowhere declares that reviewers can judge it by quantity over quality. So, to utilize the overused, "Indra has the most hymns where as Rudra and Vishnu do not", shows a very poor understanding of VedAn~gic theology. Indra is far from being the "most supreme" God of the Rg-Veda just because he has the most amount of hymns. It's a correlation based on a non-Indic paradigm to begin with.

For example, Devi Usha has some of the best Rica-s ascribed to her. "Indologically speaking", these Rica-s put other Rica-s to shame because of the amount of intricacy and structure -- it's practically a wet dream for Sanskritists because it shows to them some of the best formulations of Vedic grammar and syntax. Yet, since her lacking of having quantitative hymns makes her "minor", even though such an action is theologically incorrect. Last time I checked, she's the only DevatA summoned through not just "mantra-s", but "satya-mantra-s", an attribution that is solely given to her, no one else...not even Indra or Vishnu, which basically speaks volumes.

The mere notion of Vishnu being "minor" is not a Hindu notion. It is purely an Indological notion. However, there have been few Indologists that have admitted this as problematic, since the evaluating of Rica-s in which Vishnu is mentioned shows anything but - he's far from being "minor". Quantitatively minor? Sure. Minor from the quality Shrutically given to him or Rudra or any other "minor" God? Far from it. In fact, if it wasn't for Vishnu, Vrtra/encompassing darkness would never have been "torn apart" in order for "go/light" to come through. He is also one of the very few to be ascribed a place of highest footing.

Even Muller got it correct: the hymns can't be evaluated based on their superficial realities of which Deva has more hymns and which Deva does not - in fact, the dude specifically coined the word, "kathenotheism", just for that very reason. Abiding by the concept of Apaurusheya, Muller concluded that each hymn, regardless of to whom it is dedicated and regardless of how many times it is ascribed to a certain Deity, is supreme in its own right. In other words, this automatically destroys any notions of Vishnu being "minor", since the dictations of Apaurusheya would give them equal footing in being known as divine revelations. To discriminate each Sukta from one another and each individual Rica from another Rica would go against the very foundational concept of Hinduism - that the Veda-s are of divine origin - and, in Vedic notions of divinity, there are no minorisms - otherwise, we would be putting on humanly constructs, restricting Shruti in the process unnecessarily.

Also, please keep in mind: this is the HinduDIR, not the IndologyDIR.

Agni is called as Devata , while krishna or shiva are called as Bhagavan

Do you know the breakdown, or origin, of the compound, "bhaga-vAn"?

 

[Poeticus]

However, non-Bhāratīya ISKCON devotees have a few more reasons to not append Hindu, and they find this appealing. That is their problem .

I don't see it as a problem. At the end of the day, they still are worshipping Krishna. IMHO, that's as "Hindu" as you can get.

However, the moment we start restricting dharma-m vedasya to nomenclature is the moment we start downplaying the notions of Dharma being "Sanatana".

However, if you really want to get technical...there would be countless appellations to chose from to come to a decision on what "name" "Hindus" should start calling themselves. But, when we look at the history of "Veda-derived" theological schools of thought, including non-ShAkhA-ic schools, we notice that there wasn't a definitive term that encompassed all of them, other than the categorization of astika.

However, I find nothing embarrassing or shameful with being referred to as a Hindu. Just like the Slavic peoples that took on Slava from Sclavus overtime, "Hindus" took on "Hindu" as a collective identity, even though it has caused semantical problems, sure.

Other than that, I'm proud to be a Hindu. And, many of my Western-Hindu friends here on RF are very proud to be Hindus as well.

India officially back to Bhārat (in English, internationally) is doable. Lot of Software changes, mainly.

It's not only doable, but it already has occurred. India is known as BhArat GaNrAjya in Indian politics, if I recall correctly.

What about Hindu back to Sanātan Dharma or Sanātan Vaidic Dharma (not Vedic, it is Vaidic).

Actually, not to be semantical, but it is Vaidi-ka: "Of Veda; Veda-derived".

However, there is no need to do this. A better program would be for spreading awareness on how "Hinduism" isn't a religion, but only a conglomeration of various "Veda-derived" belief systems that ascribe to the astika.

These days, many use "Vedic" and "Hindu" interchangeably.