"we are not hindu!!"

[kaisersose]

Uh... the term "Hindu" is only a few hundred years old.

Al beruni from a thousand years ago used the word Hindu. It was already in use by then to differentiate between Moslems and Hindus in the subcontinent.

Within Hindus, they identified themselves among the various sub-groups.

 

[Riverwolf]

Al beruni from a thousand years ago used the word Hindu. It was already in use by then to differentiate between Moslems and Hindus in the subcontinent.

Within Hindus, they identified themselves among the various sub-groups.

Ah, a quick google search makes my error apparent. My bad.

 

[kaisersose]

Ah, a quick google search makes my error apparent. My bad.

There are sources which incorrectly state the etymology of the word Hindu to have an origin around the 15th century AD - based on the time of European entry into India.

 

[Andal]

This is an interesting thread. There are definitely groups who are obviously Hindu but don't count themselves as being such. For my self i find the following scenario:

1) Person: "What religion are you?"
Me: "Vaishnav"
Person: <<insert funny look>> "huh?"

2) Person: "What religion are you?"
Me : "Hare Krishna"
Person: <<insert disdainful look>> "You belong to a cult!"

3) Person: "What religion are you?"
Me : " Hindu"
Person: <<insert surprised look>> "You can be white and Hindu?"

I prefer scenario 3, the surprise look is nicer than the other two . I am a congregational member at my local Iskcon temple and I find that my theological views are heavily influenced by them but I don't consider myself as being separate or outside Hinduism or the rest of the temple. They keep Vedic standards and that's enough for me regardless of how Iskcon may present itself.

I can see why Vaishnavism as a whole has tried to make a distinction between itself and other forms of Hinduism but I don't see why Vaishnavs or any other group who accept the Vedas can't consider themselves Hindu or better yet, Dharmis

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Arav]

This is an interesting thread. There are definitely groups who are obviously Hindu but don't count themselves as being such. For my self i find the following scenario:

1) Person: "What religion are you?"
Me: "Vaishnav"
Person: <<insert funny look>> "huh?"

2) Person: "What religion are you?"
Me : "Hare Krishna"
Person: <<insert disdainful look>> "You belong to a cult!"

3) Person: "What religion are you?"
Me : " Hindu"
Person: <<insert surprised look>> "You can be white and Hindu?"

I prefer scenario 3, the surprise look is nicer than the other two . I am a congregational member at my local Iskcon temple and I find that my theological views are heavily influenced by them but I don't consider myself as being separate or outside Hinduism or the rest of the temple. They keep Vedic standards and that's enough for me regardless of how Iskcon may present itself.

I can see why Vaishnavism as a whole has tried to make a distinction between itself and other forms of Hinduism but I don't see why Vaishnavs or any other group who accept the Vedas can't consider themselves Hindu or better yet, Dharmis

Aum Hari Aum!

I agree Krishnakanta, the last one sounds better and the person might be suprised instead of confused too. If one were to go up and say they were an Advaitin, or Saiva, or Vaishnava, the person would most likely be very confused. But sense people have some knowledge of Hinduism, they would understand to a degree.

 

[nameless]

Ramana Maharshi did agree with the vedas and would cite the upanishads and things like that. He saw that many of the things talked about in the Upanishads went with his personal experiances. He even called God Shiva, Brahman, and spoke about Shakti. Saying all of this, he didnt rely on the scriptures and was above them. Saying Ramana Maharshi is Naastika would be like saying all Avadhuts and Jnani's are Naastika. This is just my opinion.

to my understanding buddha did not said vedas are wrong, but he rejected relying on vedas for salvation(vedas too says the same). The gurukula sampradaya of hinduism not involves studying of scriptures of other teachers, they are thought orally like what buddha did.

 

[nameless]

I don't see Ramana's followers forming a new religion. If he rejected the Veda ( he did not) and the four-fold classification (he did, in some ways), then if his followers want a separate religion for themselves, they have a case.

the question is did buddha formed new religion or he asked his followers to form a new religion? how was his tradition in basic was different from that of hinduism? As said before, Buddha rejected relying on Vedas(scriptures) for salvation, it does mean vedas are wrong, the vedas itself says the same.

 

[Arav]

to my understanding buddha did not said vedas are wrong, but he rejected relying on vedas for salvation(vedas too says the same).

I read somewhere that Buddha wasnt aganst the Vedas or say they were wrong, but that he rejected their authority. He wanted you to be "a light unto yourself"

 

[kaisersose]

the question is did buddha formed new religion or he asked his followers to form a new religion? how was his tradition in basic was different from that of hinduism? As said before, Buddha rejected relying on Vedas(scriptures) for salvation, it does mean vedas are wrong, the vedas itself says the same.

Buddhists rejected the Veda as an authority. They rejected the four fold classification of humans and took the position that all people are equal regardless of birth. For these reasons, it was not an Aastika darshana and eventually was treated as a separate religion.

About Buddhists rejecting the Veda, long arguments can be found among Mimaamsa texts and to a slightly lesser extent, among Shankara's arguments with Buddhists. The Mimaasa scholar Kumarila Bhatta is held to be mainly responsible for converting over a large number of Buddhist scholars back to Hinduism (Mimaamsa). The Mimaamsa school developed an elaborate case for the apaurusheyatva of the Veda (unauthoredness) which was later borrowed by Vedanta schools. This was a major argument against Buddhism as unauthored => no human creation => free of flaw, which was a drawback in Buddhism as it had a human source.

 

[zenzero]

Friend madanbhakta,

"we are not hindu!!"

Probably you are not if you are not living in the parts of the indian peninsular which lies beyond the river *sindhu* or *indus*[today].

Also it is clear that somewhere an understanding is lacking that it is the mind that DIVIDES each other into categories of religion, regions, creed etc. What needs to be understood that early on when meditators spoke of Sanatan Dharma they themselves would never have imagined the human mind will misunderstand it so much that the world will be fragmented only in mind but taken as the real world.

The words Sanatan simply means "eternal" and dharma means 'Laws of existence' which has nothing to do with any particular system/path/way/religion.

What the mind needs to understand is that religion is simply a path taken towards the journey to know the *self* which is known only when the mind itself is transcended.
The mind keeps on creating barriers/illusions by way of thoughts/pictures/images and this is only a thin film that comes in between the individual and the universal and once the individual transcends his mind this illusionary patterns falls and then one simply IS! and that is religion.
One could take any one way of the ways available and which could be as many as as many individuals or each path is unique even within a path e.g. If am walking along with a crowd still my footsteps will be unique as even though they may fall on someones's step but still the time and space of that step will be unique and so is the path except that the mind is not *conscious* of the fact.

This lack of understanding is what has led to so many divisions in the small world of humans who are just another form of the millions of forms in this vast expanding universe which are all parts of the same energy which is both eternal [timeless / spaceless] which follows its own law. Those who understand the laws and follow them live in harmony are enlightened rest as on the evolutionary path, which too is a path,

Love & rgds

 

[TTCUSM]

Uh... the term "Hindu" is only a few hundred years old.

No, it isn't. Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of Sikhism, said "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." That means that the term "Hindu" was in use long before the British came along.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, it isn't. Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of Sikhism, said "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." That means that the term "Hindu" was in use long before the British came along.

Kaisersose has already corrected me. lol

 

[Vishnu_Dasan]

"We're Vaishnavas..."


So, with the vagary of what actually constitutes a Hindu, I consider Hindu, although a historically innacurate term, to be a cultural term, regarding any belief system or religion that adheres to the Vedic Scriptures. While Hinduism and being Hindu is a culture, I appropriate Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism, etc. to be separate, distinct religions with the same cultural substance.

Yet, sometimes I feel with certain organisations like ISKCON (which is Gaudiya Vaishnava by definition) or SCS Math (my organisation!) will remove the Hindu claim for either fear of unacceptance, or for popularisation. What is really so bad about being 'Hindu?" Even though I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I use the word 'Hindu' as a term of convenience so as to get people's idea of 'Hare Krishna cult' out of their heads, lol.

Sometimes I feel that Srila Prabhupad disliked the term Hindu because also he did not consider non-Vaishnavism to be truly 'Vedic' as much as Vaishnavism itself. He even said that it did not matter what sampradaya one belongs to, as long as it is a Vaishnava one, lol.

I am sure that ISKCON's not the only 'non-Hindu' obviously Hindu organisation out there; I have heard that the Ramakrishna mission also does the same, as well as other personality cults such as Baba Hari Dass, Mata Amritanandamayi, etc.

I disagree.

 

[Andal]

I disagree.

With which part do you disagree? Would you care to elaborate?

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Vishnu_Dasan]

With which part do you disagree? Would you care to elaborate?

Aum Hari Aum!

That Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktaism and Smartism are different religions.

Truth is One. The means of establishing this Truth thus can only be one(religion-sanatana dharma). This Truth seen in different scope may be different but the emphasis and goal is the Truth.

 

[Gaura Priya]

That Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktaism and Smartism are different religions.

Truth is One. The means of establishing this Truth thus can only be one(religion-sanatana dharma). This Truth seen in different scope may be different but the emphasis and goal is the Truth.

Yes, but it is slightly hard to see this in the reality, when there is a big difference in the approach or perception given.

Vaishnavism asserts that Dvaita philosophy is the only philosophy posited from the Vedic Scriptures, and Advaita Vedanta is considered atheistic and anti-Vedic, at the same level as Buddhism.

Only Vishnu-tattva should be worshipped; all forms of devata or demigod worship is considered strongly against, as a Muslim is to idols or a Christian is to denying Jesus' Divinity.

Vaishnavas only consider certain Puranas as most important Scriptures, especially the Bhagavata Purana, and of course, Srimad Bhagavad-gita.

Shaivism, Shaktism and Smartism all have entirely different approaches, their own corpi of Scriptures (a Shaiva will never accept Srimad-Bhagavatam as the ultimate Purana, and a Vaishnava will never accept Tirumantiram).

While they all share the quest for the Absolute Truth (Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti), each approach and view are seemingly different, and some almost exclusivistic, such as Vaishnavism.

This is where I am coming from in the claim that they are different religions altogether, and Hindu is a cultural term, Hindu culture meaning culture that stems from the Veda.

Veda doesn't belong to any particular religion or people, but for the whole Earth. when it becomes interpreted and solidified into a codified way of life, it can be called a religion.