raater_aloo
Member
Hey y'all
Just want to get your opinions on this subject. It may have been already addressed as it constantly comes up, but I didnt find it in the archives.
What are the limits of Hinduism? In other words, what must a Hindu believe or not believe, do or not do, in order for you to consider them a Hindu?
Just to list off some criteria which people sometimes use:
1) Some people take the broadest interpretation and say that anyone who does study, meditation, and contemplation of themselves and the universe in order to ascertain the true nature of these things, is a Hindu. This is good because it covers pretty much everyone who is a truth seeker, but it also seems extremely vague and broad.
2) Others take a still very broad stance and say that anyone who subscribes to a philosophy originating in the Indian subcontinent is a Hindu, which includes Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Charvakas, etc. This seems convenient because it covers all reasonable border cases, but still problematic, because Jains Buddhists and Sikhs usually deny being Hindu.
3) Others say that anyone who self identifies as a Hindu is a Hindu. This is good because it gets around the Jain Buddhist Sikh problem, but then what if someone who is not recognizable as a Hindu in any other way, claims to be a Hindu?
4) Others couple number 2 and number 3, so that if someone ascribes to an Indian tradition and claims to be a Hindu, they are Hindu. I think this one is pretty close to the mark, but some people think it is perhaps too broad.
3) Others say that one must accept the Vedas as true revealed knowledge, i.e. be an "aastika." This has the benifet of describing discrete philosophies according to a traditional categorization. But then, one would conclude that some of the Brahmo Samaj was non-Hindu, as well as Ravidas and other Bhakti Panths.
6) Others say that one must believe in certain doctrines like Dharma, Karma, Samsara, Moksha, etc. This is good since the vast majority of Hindus share these beliefs. But again this would make the Brahmos non-Hindu, and also would make some of the authors of the Vedas not-Hindu.
7) Some rare few make belief in God a requirement to be a Hindu, but this is clearly not the case as is evidenced by the atheist aastikas like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa.
8) Others define a Hindu by his or her practices. If he or she studies the texts, meditates, preforms hindu rituals, etc. then he or she is a Hindu. But many people who have Hindu beliefs don't do any of that, at least not on anything close to a regular basis.
There are probably some other definitions which people use. But which one do you think works best?
Just want to get your opinions on this subject. It may have been already addressed as it constantly comes up, but I didnt find it in the archives.
What are the limits of Hinduism? In other words, what must a Hindu believe or not believe, do or not do, in order for you to consider them a Hindu?
Just to list off some criteria which people sometimes use:
1) Some people take the broadest interpretation and say that anyone who does study, meditation, and contemplation of themselves and the universe in order to ascertain the true nature of these things, is a Hindu. This is good because it covers pretty much everyone who is a truth seeker, but it also seems extremely vague and broad.
2) Others take a still very broad stance and say that anyone who subscribes to a philosophy originating in the Indian subcontinent is a Hindu, which includes Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Charvakas, etc. This seems convenient because it covers all reasonable border cases, but still problematic, because Jains Buddhists and Sikhs usually deny being Hindu.
3) Others say that anyone who self identifies as a Hindu is a Hindu. This is good because it gets around the Jain Buddhist Sikh problem, but then what if someone who is not recognizable as a Hindu in any other way, claims to be a Hindu?
4) Others couple number 2 and number 3, so that if someone ascribes to an Indian tradition and claims to be a Hindu, they are Hindu. I think this one is pretty close to the mark, but some people think it is perhaps too broad.
3) Others say that one must accept the Vedas as true revealed knowledge, i.e. be an "aastika." This has the benifet of describing discrete philosophies according to a traditional categorization. But then, one would conclude that some of the Brahmo Samaj was non-Hindu, as well as Ravidas and other Bhakti Panths.
6) Others say that one must believe in certain doctrines like Dharma, Karma, Samsara, Moksha, etc. This is good since the vast majority of Hindus share these beliefs. But again this would make the Brahmos non-Hindu, and also would make some of the authors of the Vedas not-Hindu.
7) Some rare few make belief in God a requirement to be a Hindu, but this is clearly not the case as is evidenced by the atheist aastikas like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa.
8) Others define a Hindu by his or her practices. If he or she studies the texts, meditates, preforms hindu rituals, etc. then he or she is a Hindu. But many people who have Hindu beliefs don't do any of that, at least not on anything close to a regular basis.
There are probably some other definitions which people use. But which one do you think works best?
