What is Hinduism

[Satyamavejayanti]

Namaste,
Hinduism, I profess it, I express it, I accept and respect it, but what does it actually mean for me and my life?

Is there a simple answer to “what is Hinduism”, or is it more complicated and more challenging to define?

Those who have Shruddha in the Hindu idea, those that are not afraid or ashamed or shy about being Hindu, what is the answer to this question from the perspective of these people, I confidently say “I am a Hindu”, but what is this Hinduism that I and many others are so confident with?

Well I hope to read from all those who are willing to attempt this question, I will attempt to give my meaning to the word Hinduism.

To Me:

Hinduism = Dharmah. Guna of Dharmah = responsibility, ethics, relationships, respect, worship, social wellbeing, individual wellbeing, practice, ritual, philosophy, wisdom, compassion, unity. Dharmah is the responsibility of the individual and the society at large, the practice of an ethical lifestyle, respect for the relationships we Humans have with each other and mother Bhumi, worship in any mode, in any style of many or none forms. Dharmah is the category produced for an individual to determine who is considered a Guru/Acharya/Purohita/Pundit/Swami/Deva and Devi so one can peruse personal wellbeing and happiness, Artha and Kama. Dharmah is there to produce an ethical, happy, content and respectful individual who forms part of a larger society so that the society of many well-grounded individuals can have wellbeing. Dharma is practical to be put into practice every moment of my life with rituals Dharmah creates a sense of responsibility and Shruddha, the philosophy of life and living is Dharmah. The wise who share their wisdom with those willing is a wise act within itself. Dharmah is extended not only to Humans but to all living and non-living beings/entities where compassion and respect are fostered not because this existence is for our use, but because Mata Bhumi has her own rights which we are taught to respect. Dharmah is diverse yet it is among hindus a uniting force.

I try to practice Dharmah not just because I am Hindu, but these ideals and practices of Dharmah are proven to produce the least amount of Hinsa and asatya, this is one reason I don’t consider “duty”, as much a good description of Dharmah, as Dharmah is not something like duty that binds us but the opposite, Dharmah is realese from the Bonds – Dharmah is Moksha.

This is just what comes to mind this morning, not mentioning Tradition, culture and a sense of belonging as these are not much specific to being Hindu.

The highest ideals of Hinduism I hold, are the practice of Satya and Ahimsa. Even if I just take these two principal practices of Hindu Dharmah, to me these encompass all that I can think of and beyond.

Each of these Guna of Dharmah that I can think of is not merely an idea, these are practical and come within the broader idea of “Sanatana”, or these Gunas of Dharmah are unlimited and unending.

I consider Dharmah as a perfect definition and representation of Hindu practices.

Wish to hear from all those who can contribute their views.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Cont..
Also the contribution from our Shastras that are there as a Guide to Dharmah must be acknowledged and respected, not simply believed and followed, but thoroughly debated and discussed.

Here i post just a quote from one of our Shastra on the subject: From where it comes from i don't know, but that i don't consider too important at this stage.

“And that Dharmah which tortures one’s self and friends is really no Dharmah. It is rather Adharmah, producing calamities. Dharmah is sometimes also a human weakness. And though such a one might be engaged in the practice of Dharmah, yet both Dharmah and Artha forsake one like Kama and Dukha forsaking a person that is dead. He that practices Dharmah for Dharma’s sake always suffers. He can scarcely be called a wise man, for he knows not the purposes of Dharmah, like a blind man incapable of perceiving the solar light. “In the same way Artha is to be properly subordinated to the acquisition of Dharmah and Kama. He that regards his Artha to exist for himself alone, scarcely understands the purposes of Artha. He is really like a servant that tends cattle in a forest. He, again, that pursues Artha too much without looking to Dharmah and Kama, deserves to be censured and slain by all men... He that wishes to obtain Artha, seeks for a large share of Dharmah to crown his wish with success. He that wishes for Kama seeks Artha.” Thus Dharmah is necessary for worldly success, which in its turn leads to happiness. An exclusive pursuit of happiness leads nowhere. “He also that ever pursues Kama without pursuing Dharmah and Artha, loses his friends and Dharmah and Artha also. Destitute of Dharmah and Artha, such a person indulging in Kama at will, at the expiration of his period of indulgence, meets with certain death. ‘Kama is essentially connected with both Dharmah and Artha; but it is as a normal accompaniment of these and not as a means leading to any of these ends that it exists. Kama, therefore, unlike the other two is incapable of being a fresh source of moral growth. “They that are wise are ever careful of both Dharmah and Artha, for a union of Dharmah and Artha is the essential requisite of Kama. Kama has always Dharmah for its root, and Dharmah also is united with Kama. Know that both are dependent on each other, like the ocean and the clouds, the ocean causing, clouds, and the clouds filling the ocean. The joy that arises from the senses, the intellect, and the heart being directed to the objects proper to each is called Kama. That Kama is one of the best fruits of our Karma. ‘Kama therefore should be welcomed as a result of all normal and healthy activities; but it should not be an end by itself, “Kama, however, yields nothing in its turn. One Kama cannot lead to another, being its own fruit; as ashes may be had from wood, but nothing from those ashes in their turn... He, therefore, who misled by Kama, or covetousness beholds not the Kama of Dharmah, deserves to be slain by all? And becomes wretched both here and hereafter.’ A natural union of all three, each in due subordination to the other is the best thing to be aimed at."

Hinduism therefore to me is not a commandment nor God given words to prophets, but is the mature attempt at producing a peaceful and harmonious individual and society. Real Peace is not merely declaring that my ideology is peaceful, it is the hard evidence from my actions that determines peacefulness. Real Love and compassion does not need to be told to a Human from any external source, Humans are naturally inclined towards Love and compassion and Hinduism provides the architecture for these to flourish.

This is why I am a Hindu, this is what Hinduism is to me.

Dhanyavad

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Sorry, the title is "What is Hinduism", my mistake.

 

[Madhuri]

Sorry, the title is "What is Hinduism", my mistake.

I corrected the spelling

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I corrected the spelling

Dhanyavad Devi Ji

 

[Aupmanyav]

Agree completely. Dharma is Hinduism's "least common factor" as I like to say.

"Hinduism therefore to me is not a commandment nor God given words to prophets, but is the mature attempt at producing a peaceful and harmonious individual and society. Real Peace is not merely declaring that my ideology is peaceful, it is the hard evidence from my actions that determines peacefulness." Kudos, Satyam.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Further to my post above, being a Hindu and having compassion towards other is a essential practice. Not only other Hindus or Humans, the idea of compassion and unity that drives Hinduisms peaceful nature and outlook is extended to the entire cosmos, when i say that Love and Compassion are Natural to us, this idea is somewhat ingrained in my DNA, This idea of Love and Compassion is rife in our texts as well, one such story from a Purana is the following.

"the Vysa (compiler) by name of Samadhi, and the noble king went to the Muni." They were duly respected by him as prescribed in the ordinances: they both conversed on history. The Rajah said, "O divine personage! I am desirous to ask one thing from thee, explain it to me, my mind has lost its function, I am troubled with anxiety? O excellent Muni! what is this? though conscious of transitory nature, yet like an ignorant person I love my kingdom, and all my retinue. He (Samadhi) was banished by his son, wife, attendants, and his relations, yet he feels pity for them. In this manner we both excessively grieve, love draws us unto reprehensible actions. What is this, O magnificent sage, though we are ingenious, yet our affection produces scarcity in action.

The Rishi said, "O great sharer, wisdom exists in all living creatures that are desirous of life, love predominates in each individually. Some animals are blind in the day, others at night, and others again that appear equally blind both day and night. It is true, that kings appear prudent, but are not really so; all the beasts, birds, animals have knowledge. What knowledge mankind is possessed of, the others are equally endowed with. See the birds being wise, though oppressed with hunger themselves, yet lovingly pick up the crumbs with their beaks and feed their young ones? O chief of kings! do you not see men lovingly support their offspring for the benefit of others?.

By attraction they fall in the vortex of love. By the power of Mahamaya, the world was originally created. Mahamaya seized the lord of the world when at his slumber yoga; the great illusion enveloped Hari, she shackles the world. The divine goddess possesses irresistibly the heart of even the wisest, and forcibly leads into great deception. By her the universe consisting of animates and inanimate was created, her blessings procure emancipation. The knowledge of her is the means of supreme salvation; she is eternal and links mortality; she is the supreme goddess over all goddesses."

As a Child i grew up without any doctrine of Hinduism, there was no emphases on texts at all. This is i think the main reason I am free as a Hindu to acquire knowledge from our texts without the necessity to be bound by them.

Dhanyavad

 

[sayak83]

Namaste,
Hinduism, I profess it, I express it, I accept and respect it, but what does it actually mean for me and my life?

Is there a simple answer to “what is Hinduism”, or is it more complicated and more challenging to define?

Those who have Shruddha in the Hindu idea, those that are not afraid or ashamed or shy about being Hindu, what is the answer to this question from the perspective of these people, I confidently say “I am a Hindu”, but what is this Hinduism that I and many others are so confident with?

Well I hope to read from all those who are willing to attempt this question, I will attempt to give my meaning to the word Hinduism.

To Me:

Hinduism = Dharmah. Guna of Dharmah = responsibility, ethics, relationships, respect, worship, social wellbeing, individual wellbeing, practice, ritual, philosophy, wisdom, compassion, unity. Dharmah is the responsibility of the individual and the society at large, the practice of an ethical lifestyle, respect for the relationships we Humans have with each other and mother Bhumi, worship in any mode, in any style of many or none forms. Dharmah is the category produced for an individual to determine who is considered a Guru/Acharya/Purohita/Pundit/Swami/Deva and Devi so one can peruse personal wellbeing and happiness, Artha and Kama. Dharmah is there to produce an ethical, happy, content and respectful individual who forms part of a larger society so that the society of many well-grounded individuals can have wellbeing. Dharma is practical to be put into practice every moment of my life with rituals Dharmah creates a sense of responsibility and Shruddha, the philosophy of life and living is Dharmah. The wise who share their wisdom with those willing is a wise act within itself. Dharmah is extended not only to Humans but to all living and non-living beings/entities where compassion and respect are fostered not because this existence is for our use, but because Mata Bhumi has her own rights which we are taught to respect. Dharmah is diverse yet it is among hindus a uniting force.

I try to practice Dharmah not just because I am Hindu, but these ideals and practices of Dharmah are proven to produce the least amount of Hinsa and asatya, this is one reason I don’t consider “duty”, as much a good description of Dharmah, as Dharmah is not something like duty that binds us but the opposite, Dharmah is realese from the Bonds – Dharmah is Moksha.

This is just what comes to mind this morning, not mentioning Tradition, culture and a sense of belonging as these are not much specific to being Hindu.

The highest ideals of Hinduism I hold, are the practice of Satya and Ahimsa. Even if I just take these two principal practices of Hindu Dharmah, to me these encompass all that I can think of and beyond.

Each of these Guna of Dharmah that I can think of is not merely an idea, these are practical and come within the broader idea of “Sanatana”, or these Gunas of Dharmah are unlimited and unending.

I consider Dharmah as a perfect definition and representation of Hindu practices.

Wish to hear from all those who can contribute their views.

Whenever in doubt (which is often) I read the Mahabharata. It always has something appropriate somewhere. By family house had a fairly large collection of books in a series of book cases which I often broke into when nobody was looking from the age of 7. Apart from the usual fiction (Rabindranath, Sarat Chandra, Bankim Chandra etc. ) it had the Bible, Dialectical Materialism and Unabridged Mahabharata (Bengali Kasiram Das) side by side. After reading the first 10-20 pages, the only one I liked was the Mahabharata which I finished reading in about 7 days (I was 10 years old then). The rest is history .

 

[Aupmanyav]

My story also is similar. My grandfather's collection had a two part book on Russo-Japanese war which I liked very much and the other was a Hindi edition of Gita Press' SrimadBhagawadPurana. I read, re-read and re-read the book hundreds of times. I still have the book with me and I use it as ready reference. Checked, it is a 1940 publication, i.e., 2 years before my birth.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

The term 'hindu' for me has always been a geo-socio-cultural-political term (coined by external observers), because there is really no umbrella concept / belief system that can be singularly / essentially considered hinduism / hindu religion. Indeed those claiming to be 'hindus by religion' are doing so only because of statutory-political reasons, exactly the reason why sikhs, buddhists, jains, don't want to be considered hindus! The current definition of 'hindu', i feel, has become very narrow potentially excluding the cārvakas, buddhists etc, once considered important philosophies of bhārata. From the geo-socio-cultural-political terminology too i would prefer bhāratīya for irrespective of the philosophy people have always identified themselves as bhāratīya, perhaps hindu is better than India, but in any case both are apabhraṁśa.

This idea of Love and Compassion is rife in our texts as well, one such story from a Purana is the following.

Just an observation: in this discussion from mārkaṇḍeya purāṇa, the muni is actually helping the vaiśya and the king see the truth behind what appears to be unconditional love (in the act of birds feeding their young despite themselves being hungry) as evidenced by the subsequent passage:
mānuṣā manujavyāghra sābhilāṣāḥ sutāṅ prati | lobhāt ptrayupakārāya nanvetāṅ kiṁ na paśyasi || just as these birds feed their young (in the hope of continuing their progeny) why don't you see, o tiger among men, the same acts of compassion amongst humans who do so out of lobha (~greed) and/or expecting something in return?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Hinduism, for me, is the name I give to those activities (sadhana) that pull me out of maya for just a little bit and refocus my mind on spiritual improvement. For me this means Hinduism is selfless service to others - since serving others is serving god within all, and therefore, ultimate a service to myself. This is getting lost in the flow of my work, experiencing it for what it is, rather then hoping for a particular outcome. The same "flow" happens during service when we are truly engaged.

So for me, Hinduism is a collection of rituals and practices which literally help me "go out of my mind" in a sense.

Even my meditation practices, though focused inward, ultimately result in me simply being in the present without getting lost in the narrative of my life.

Hinduism is the name I give to that feeling I had the first time I walked into a mandir. That feeling of, "Oh, you're here." and that conviction that the "you" has always been "here" whether "I" was aware of it or not.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"तत्त्वप्रह्व, post: 4829416, member: 55730"]Namaste,

Namaste,

The term 'hindu' for me has always been a geo-socio-cultural-political term (coined by external observers)...

Yes that is why i base my Hinduism on Dharmah. Rather then calling it a "umbrella term", or some "geo-socio-cultural-political", term, I emphasize the Dharmah which is Sanatana.

Just an observation: in this discussion from mārkaṇḍeya purāṇa, the muni is actually helping the vaiśya and the king see the truth behind what appears to be unconditional love (in the act of birds feeding their young despite themselves being hungry) as evidenced by the subsequent passage: mānuṣā manujavyāghra sābhilāṣāḥ sutāṅ prati | lobhāt ptrayupakārāya nanvetāṅ kiṁ na paśyasi || just as these birds feed their young (in the hope of continuing their progeny) why don't you see, o tiger among men, the same acts of compassion amongst humans who do so out of lobha (~greed) and/or expecting something in return?

Agree, "unconditional Love" is only preached by those who do not consider the intricacies of relationships among living beings. For me NishKama Karma or "to Love (KAMA) without any personal gain", is the actual idea which may limit the Dukha that can also be attached to Kama/Love.

In other words, feed those who need food.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

I emphasize the Dharmah which is Sanatana.

Fair enough, but what am indicating is this definition would exclude several 'indians' who don't accept the concept of dharma (as a part of puruṣārtha catuṣṭḥaya) - purely vaidika concept - even after excluding those that accept other religions. The so-called rationalists have beliefs that would be typical of erstwhile cārvaka philosophy, so defining 'hindu' as one who accepts sanātana dharma would preclude such people.

I feel the application of the term 'hindu' not found in any scripture / used in any practice is more of an imposition. If on the other hand it is merely appellation to those following 'a' dharma, bauddha, jaina, śākta, and śaiva too would be so in addition to vaidika dharma, and using 'hindu' to refer to all these collectively would again make the term "geo-socio-cultural-political".

Dharmasya caraṇaṁ śréyaḥ dharmajñānaṁ tu duṣkaraṃ!

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[von bek]

My story also is similar. My grandfather's collection had a two part book on Russo-Japanese war which I liked very much

Quick question. The Russo-Japanese War is a subject that I have an interest in. Do you recall the name of this book?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"तत्त्वप्रह्व, post: 4832411, member: 55730"

Namaste,

Fair enough, but what am indicating is this definition would exclude several 'indians' who don't accept the concept of dharma (as a part of puruṣārtha catuṣṭḥaya) - purely vaidika concept - even after excluding those that accept other religions. The so-called rationalists have beliefs that would be typical of erstwhile cārvaka philosophy, so defining 'hindu' as one who accepts sanātana dharma would preclude such people.

It is plausible for people to think this way, no doubt, I assume that those who will not accept Sanatana Dharmah will only do so if they equate Dharmah with religion exclusively. Plus this is my personal definition of Hinduism which rests on the rock of Dharmah, i am not expecting anyone to follow my Hinduism or Dharmah. To me Dharmah is not specifically religion although religion is part of Dharmah, or more accurately religions/Samprada/Matta ect must abide by Dharmah and not be conductive of Adharmah. I think there can be Charvaks who are still Dharmic, i don't see anything about Dharmah that excludes one from being Charvak/Lokyata Matta ect.

Any one who claims Charvaks are Adharmic without any evidence/parmana of them actually committing Papa Karma, is not justified in claiming so.

I feel the application of the term 'hindu' not found in any scripture / used in any practice is more of an imposition. If on the other hand it is merely appellation to those following 'a' dharma, bauddha, jaina, śākta, and śaiva too would be so in addition to vaidika dharma, and using 'hindu' to refer to all these collectively would again make the term "geo-socio-cultural-political".

I know what you mean, but we have a term (Hinduism) which even if we agree with it or not, it is our calling card at in this Kala, plus I am not saying that if one agrees to my definition of Dharmah is classified as a Hindu, rather that my Hinduism is based on the Indic idea of Dharmah, if Buddhas, Jainas, Charvakas, Sikhas are also advocating Dharmah, this does not mean to me that somehow they are Hindu. Dharmah to me is primarily based on Karma and is simply the opposite to Adharmah.

I think we can agree that Dharmah is not exclusively vaidika, Agamas also proclaim Dharmah for example, Buddhists, Jains Sikhs ect all have their notion of Dharmah, I am not saying that if you consider your self Dharmic that you have to be Hindu.

Dharmah is not equal to Hinduism, but Hinduism must be Dharmic in order to alleviate Dukha for all peoples, this is my simple concern.

Dhanyavad

 

[Aupmanyav]

Quick question. The Russo-Japanese War is a subject that I have an interest in. Do you recall the name of this book?

No, Von Bek. That was 60 years ago and at that time also it was not a new book. Most probably it was in Hindi (I do not exactly remember now). It could have been a translation from an English book. It must have been written/translated by a Bengali because after Russian Revolution (and perhaps the cataclysmic Bengal partition of 1905), Bengalis were very much interested in Russia. It was sure a detailed account, two parts, each about 250/300 pages, readable large font, not one which you have to strain your eyes to read, or perhaps it seems like that because my eyes have grown weaker now. We gave all our books to the community library in our neighborhood. It may still be there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am often at loss to differentiate between 'humane action' and 'Sanatan Dharma'. I think they are the same (no less, no more). Hinduism does not compel one to worship one God or another. It does not even mind if you don't. It does not exclude war if need be. It is not all love, love and unconditional love; it is more practical and less hypocritical than that, otherwise there would have been no Mahabharata or Lanka war. As an 'advaitist', I accept the two levels of reality. Similarly I am at loss to explain to people why I use the word 'Brahman' instead of just saying the universe, which also is the same. In both cases I take the plea that it is from my culture, that is why.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Satyamavejayanti ji

thank you for an interesting post , ....this is a subject which also at times perplexes me , ....

Namaste,

The term 'hindu' for me has always been a geo-socio-cultural-political term (coined by external observers), because there is really no umbrella concept / belief system that can be singularly / essentially considered hinduism / hindu religion. Indeed those claiming to be 'hindus by religion' are doing so only because of statutory-political reasons, exactly the reason why sikhs, buddhists, jains, don't want to be considered hindus! The current definition of 'hindu', i feel, has become very narrow potentially excluding the cārvakas, buddhists etc, once considered important philosophies of bhārata. From the geo-socio-cultural-political terminology too i would prefer bhāratīya for irrespective of the philosophy people have always identified themselves as bhāratīya, perhaps hindu is better than India, but in any case both are apabhraṁśa.

for me also the term Hindu has ''geo-socio-cultural-political'' conoteations , ...and in many ways I agree with तत्त्वप्रह्व, ji's post and in many respects explains why as a westerner I am sometimes cautious of calling my self Hindu , ...I do not know if I belong there under that ''geo-socio-cultural-political'' umbrella , .....yet as someone whos heart and mind accept the principles of Sanatana Dharma and as one whos addopted Sampradaya would be seen by many as being Hindu then of Course I accept it , .....but it can mean so many different things to differnt people , ...

I emphasize the Dharmah which is Sanatana.

I too would be more than happy with this , it is the acceptance and understanding of eternality which sets Hinduism apart from other beleifs , ...and thus the understanding of eternality whether one is a personalist or an impersonalist sets Hindus asside and dictates a Dharma followed equaly by both .

Yes that is why i base my Hinduism on Dharmah. Rather then calling it a "umbrella term", or some "geo-socio-cultural-political", term, I emphasize the Dharmah which is Sanatana.

in this context yes I agree , but I have met many who profess to be hindu who donot understand , or profess not to accept Sanatana Dharma ,... to many hinduism is socio political , there is a need in humanity to belong , to identify culturaly with something , ....to others the need is to identify phylosopicaly , ....

I think we can agree that Dharmah is not exclusively vaidika, Agamas also proclaim Dharmah for example, Buddhists, Jains Sikhs ect all have their notion of Dharmah, I am not saying that if you consider your self Dharmic that you have to be Hindu.

again here I agree , and from the Buddhist perspective that Dharma also is an indesputable law which underlay reality yet in Buddhism it must be searched for Buddha simply sought to attain knowledge and thus end suffering by empasising what we are not rather than afirming what we are , .....it is the methodology that has sepperated buddhists and Hindus , the realisations in many instances are the same , ..both seek to acheive harmony through the realisation of our true nature , and realising that nature both empasise Compassion , Selflessness and Ahimsa , ....

Dharmah is not equal to Hinduism, but Hinduism must be Dharmic in order to alleviate Dukha for all peoples, this is my simple concern.

beautifuly said , ....my concern also is that addopting Hinduism as a cultural or phylosopical identity without understanding its origins canot address the problem of suffering in this world , more it seems to cause argument , ...

those that understand the principle of Sanatana Dharma , its eternal nature, ...prehaps understand the dangers of divisionalism and of clinging to a false sence of self

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Dharmah is not equal to Hinduism, but Hinduism must be Dharmic in order to alleviate Dukha for all peoples, this is my simple concern.

Just to provoke your thoughts - the saṁskṛta term dharma /can/ include/s/ other religions as well, basically whatever an individual possesses and/or adopts is dharma, which why you'll find other religions when referred to in hindu languages are called dharma for eg., christianity becomes kraista-dharma, and that is also why religious conversion is dharma-parivartana or dharmāntaraṇa.
Also when you say sanātana, what exactly are you referring to? As in, for me, dharma is sanātana because it is based on the vedas which are apauruṣeya, hence sanātana.

I think there can be Charvaks who are still Dharmic, i don't see anything about Dharmah that excludes one from being Charvak/Lokyata Matta ect.

In a way, i'd agree with you, in that not having any value system (other than that of immediate pleasure) can itself be a (sort of) dharma - this is what the cārvaka system says, but then if you consider the cārvaka mata also as dhārmika, then wouldn't the necessity to differentiate b/w dharma and adharma itself disappear?
As an example of cārvāka rationality: TD - Traditional dharmika; CM = Cārvaka matānuyāyi (follower):
CM: The highest dharma is that which satisfies my immediate desires.
TD: But what if that desire contains in it the seed of destruction of community?
CM: It doesn't matter, there is no way i can judge the unforeseen repercussions of my action, hence, i don't think it is necessary to worry about it.
TD: Repercussions need not be always unforeseen, if you steal for the sake of satisfying your hunger, then you are not only causing unwarranted, unprovoked trouble to the other person, but also transgressing his personal rights.
CM: Not necessarily. I will steal only from those who are very rich, hence i'd only be obtaining my needs from those who have more than what they need.
TD: Even in that case, if everyone starts to live by these standards, the entire system will implode and there will widespread social unrest.
CM: The system you speak of is itself made of individuals like me, so as long as every individual is given the freedom to obtain what (s)he desires the system as a whole will also be fine.

Any one who claims Charvaks are Adharmic without any evidence/parmana of them actually committing Papa Karma, is not justified in claiming so.

The very foundation of cārvāka system is that there is nothing called pāpa and/or puṇya.
You began with this proposition:

Hinduism = Dharmah.

But if this is what you meant:

Dharmah is not equal to Hinduism, but Hinduism must be Dharmic in order to alleviate Dukha for all peoples

How would you say dharma alleviates duḥḳa? I know many brahmins for whom performing their daily dharma itself is a major source of duḥḳa

Plus this is my personal definition of Hinduism which rests on the rock of Dharmah, i am not expecting anyone to follow my Hinduism or Dharmah

Please bear with my inquisitiveness, i'm just trying to understand how you've arrived at your perspective on hinduism that you described above.

Namaste @ratikala ji.

चिद्घनमदनगोपालकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ॥

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"ratikala, post: 4842373, member: 31456"]Namaskaram Satyamavejayanti ji

Namaste Mata Ji,

for me also the term Hindu has ''geo-socio-cultural-political'' conoteations , ...and in many ways I agree with तत्त्वप्रह्व, ji's post and in many respects explains why as a westerner I am sometimes cautious of calling my self Hindu , ...I do not know if I belong there under that ''geo-socio-cultural-political'' umbrella , .....yet as someone whos heart and mind accept the principles of Sanatana Dharma and as one whos addopted Sampradaya would be seen by many as being Hindu then of Course I accept it , .....but it can mean so many different things to differnt people , ...

I can understand that, and i will say that if you feel that Hindu has some connotations that do not fit your identity it is worth while not labeling your self as a Hindu specifically, but if one does not care for the idea of Hinduism as having any connection to a specific geography, society, culture or politics but rather the Satya of Hindu claims, then i think one should not bother about what others may think.

in this context yes I agree , but I have met many who profess to be hindu who donot understand , or profess not to accept Sanatana Dharma ,... to many hinduism is socio political , there is a need in humanity to belong , to identify culturaly with something , ....to others the need is to identify phylosopicaly , ....

Yes identity is important, otherwise a westerner will not identify as a westerner, i think people can have many different identities just like we have different emotions.

......the realisations in many instances are the same , ..both seek to acheive harmony through the realisation of our true nature , and realising that nature both empasise Compassion , Selflessness and Ahimsa , ....

I agree, and this attitude does not bother me if it comes from a Hindu, Buddhust or other, as long as the Bhavana is there.

my concern also is that addopting Hinduism as a cultural or phylosopical identity without understanding its origins canot address the problem of suffering in this world , more it seems to cause argument , ...

Argument i personally don't see as being a problem, we should have a avenue to "vent our spleen", as they say.

Dhanyavad Mata Ji