My identification with 'Hinduism' was dealt a death blow when I started participating on the Hindu Dharma Forums, where I shared my own interpretations and views of Hinduism, which were considered offensive, threatening and dangerous, attracting derision and hostility and ultimately I was banned.
You may ask what were those views? My views are that Hinduism no longer represents what it is claims to be: Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion or the eternal way, or even the scientific religion. Rather, Hinduism has become a geographical religion, preoccupied with Indian nationality(in fact, for many Hindu nationalists, India and Hinduism are inseparable) Indian traditions, history, languages, rituals and politics. So is there not an obvious contradiction that a religion that claims to be the eternal religion, is geographically bound?
If Hinduism really is Santana dharma then its truths need to be universal and not just specific to India, in the same way the truths of gravity are universal, not just specific to England where the concept of gravity was formalized. Hence, whatever is not universal cannot be considered an essential part of Sanatana dharma. Here is what is not universal: Indian geography, the pantheon of Indian deities, Indian languages, Indian traditions and rituals, Indian scriptures.
If Sanatana dharma is universal, then all enlightened cultures across the universe would have discovered it, but obviously they are not reading the Vedas, they do not speak Sanskrit, they do not worship Krishna, Shiva or Kali. They will have their own geography, languages, mythology, rituals and scriptures. Thus proving that geography, language, mythology, rituals and scriptures are not essential in Sanatana dharma. They are non-essential aspects and are subject to change.
However, despite the fact the aforementioned are not essential to Sanatana Dharma, Hindus behave like they are. I have been outright told by many Hindus pandits, swamis and gurus I met in my India travels, that I am not Hindu if I do not speak Hindi or Sanskrit, if I do not observe my caste regulations, if I do not wear a dhoti, if I do not have an Ishta Devata(Shiva, Krishna or Kali etc) if I do not observe Indian traditions.
I have been told similar dogmas in Vedantic traditions(seemingly the most enlightened) My knowledge of Vedanta is not valid if I do not learn from an authorized Vedanta guru, if I do not read the exact canon of scriptures, if I do not formally take sanyasa, shave my head and beg for alms.
So why should I accept something which is not even historically essential in my religion? Bhakta argue that there are historical precusors in earlier Hindu literature like the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, but the Bhakti as enunciated there is radically different to the Bhakti which takes off in the Bhakti movement, and has since then dominated the landscape of Hinduism.
In the Upanishads Bhakti is seen as devotion to ones self, to always be contemplating on the self and to constantly meditate on the self and the essential nature of reality. In fact the Upanishads directly equate the self to the lord, it is the only scripture in the world that so radically equates ones self to god. Immortalized in the Upanishadic great sayings: Aham Brahamsmi, I am Brahman; Ayam Atma Brahma, My self is Brahman; Prajnana Brahma; Consciousness is Brahman.
Another irony is that in Hinduism itself the Upanishads comes under the category of Sruti meaning canonical, revealed texts. Then why are most Hindus not believing in and practicing what the Upanishads teach? Self inquiry, philsophical contemplation, meditation on the self? On the contrary Hindus today believe and pratice the Hinduism as enunciated in the Puranas or Puranic Hinduism, the Hinduism we all see - the worship of pantheon of gods, the legends and myths and rituals galore. It in such stark contrast to the enlightened religion of the Upanishads: Vedanta, which so many philosophers, visionaries and great minds have cherished from Shankara to Schopenhauer.
Technically, I am the real Hindu here, because I am practicing the original Vedanta. It is rich that the bhaktas should undermine my status as Hindu. I carry the weight of Sruti to back me up. I consider myself a real adherent of Santana Dharma, and the bhaktas I see as illegitimate children of it. I shall be forthright, that Bhakti to me is not valid Hinduism, and if Bhakti is what defines Hinduism today, then I would rather disown the label. The kind of primitive, superstitious and damn right silly rituals Hindus get up to in the name of Bhakti, are exactly what the Upanishadic seers rose up against. In fact the Upanishads contain very strong criticisms mocking the ritualist. The Chandogya upanishad contains a pardoy likening the ritualist to be like a procession of dogs chanting "Om! lets eat! Om! lets drink!" and even more damning passages are found in the Mundaka Upanishad calling rituals/sacrifices an unsafe boat that is overrtaken by old age and death.
Thus, the spirit of the Upanishads is opposed to ritual and superstition, and I am sure many of the seers of the Upanishads would be dismayed if they saw what Hinduism is today and share exactly my dissident views, which I intend to give expression to by writing in publications and maybe even writing my own book. I think my view, however inconveniant and offensive to the Hindu masses today, is a valid and justifiable view and deserves to be heard and discussed. Censorship of this view is directly opposed to the liberal philosophical culture of Hinduism, where even the heterodox views were honored and given due respect and consideration. It is shameful that Hindus at the Hindu dharma forum should have banned me for voicing a dissident view. I am confident that the same will not happen here, because this forum is more professional, liberal and open minded, and I doubt the moderators/admins here are Hindu nationalists.
To summarize my views:
1. Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, meaning it is the universal religion and therefore has no particular geography, language, tradition, pantheon, mythology, ritual and scriptures. One does not have to be born in India, or speak Indian languages, worship Krishna, Shiva or Durga, or even read the Vedas or the Gita to be Hindu. As long as they accept the philosophical tenets of the Upanishads they are Hindu. Therefore, one may even be Hindu without even having read the Upanishads.
2. The truths of Hinduism, because they are universal, can be discovered by any culture or any individual across the universe. The truths of Hinduism can also be found in other religions, such as Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalh, Sufism, Neo-Paganism. Hinduism is definitely not a uniquely Indian phenomenon and cannot define any nationality.
3. Puranic Hinduism and Bhakti is directly opposed to the doctrines of the Upanishads, which are considered the revealed scripture of Hinduism, they are therefore invalid corrupted forms of Hinduism. All Puranas are just a compendium of myths and legends compiled by various sects.
4. The only true Vedanta is of Advaita, the non-separation of soul and god. The later Vedantic schools like Dvaita and Visesvadvita were fabricated by medieval Bhakta theologians in order to rationalize their faith and Bhakti practices. All sorts of propoganda about Bhakti has been promulgated, how Bhakti is the only path in the Kaliyuga that is effective. It has lead to, in my opinion the destruction of the intellectual culture of India, and ultimately to the demise of Indian civilization. I predict Hinduism in its contemporary form, which I hold responsible for why India is such a fragmented country, will lead to demise of India altogether. Divided we fall, united we stand. I do not buy that India's diversity is such a good thing.
PS: Mods, I am not sure if this thread is considered 'Debate' If so, please redirect the thread where it is more appropriate.