What Makes a Hindu a Hindu?

[Vinayaka]

Namaste

For a while I have been "secretive" (or shy, perhaps?) about my own personal "Hindu-isms"

* My family and relatives all have been given instruction that my ashes are to be cast into the Ganga at Manikarnika in Kashi (Varanasi, India). I have this in writing..... snip... I have a fund set aside to pay for courier of my ashes to India by relative(s).

* This has already been mentioned, but I like the smell of incense and I like to put vibhuti on my forehead and like the perfume smell of vibhuti (I even keep a small vile of vibhuti in my car "just in case").

Om Namah Sivaya

Thanks for sharing all this. I rarely share much as 'the secret is sacred, and sacred is secret' mantra is perhaps too fully engrained.

The idea of having stuff in writing is really important. My ashes will be taken to a river flowing into the Pacific, most likely the Frazer. I tried to keep it simple for the kids. I actually believe the consciousness of east and west are reversing. The east is becoming westernised, and the west is growing eastern. How long this will continue or any timeline, I'm not sure. So I'll be taking my chances in the west. Any new monastics entering the order I am familiar with seem to all come from the west. The east has lost some of its mysticism, and is turning into an intellectual cesspool of argument.

Yes, vibhuti is wonderful stuff, although I don't keep any in the car.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Vinayaka,

Sorry to read this after so many years [though immaterial]
could you sum up the outcome of your survey??

Love & rgds

 

[Andal]

In regards to the original post...

perhaps i'm not the best hindu (in fact i know i'm not anywhere close given the number of rules i don't keep)

what makes me a Hindu is my absolute love and trust in Sri Hari and the acceptance that the Lord revealed his wisdom in the Vedas. Beyond that, i don't know what makes anyone more or less Hindu. we are all on the path and working out how to get home.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[atanu]

In regards to the original post...

perhaps i'm not the best hindu (in fact i know i'm not anywhere close given the number of rules i don't keep)

what makes me a Hindu is my absolute love and trust in Sri Hari and the acceptance that the Lord revealed his wisdom in the Vedas. Beyond that, i don't know what makes anyone more or less Hindu. we are all on the path and working out how to get home.

Aum Hari Aum!

This is correct view, IMO. A man can be at any ethical stage, but a shraddhA in Veda (with its six darsanas) and prasthanatrayi (upanishads, Brahma sutras, Gita) is considered essential.

darśanas
Prasthanatrayi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A normal seeker may not know anything of these but his shraddhA for the Hindu guru who holds the above scripture as authority is essential.
.............

There is a reason why I am writing this. Although there are debate forums, one so called atheistic advaitin is not intent on debating in debate forums, but he wishes only to put across his view as that of bonafide Hindu dharma in the Hindu dharma Dir..

This forum is frequented by many non hindus who may have very little idea of hinduism and will be absolutely confounded to read posts that say "no rebirth", 'no karma', 'no consciousness beyond body 'no deity' etc. This is leading to unnecessary cross talk and trashing of good dialog.

An advaitin such as Ramana Maharshi teaches from the paramarthika level of 'no birth' and thus no 'rebirth'. He teaches of 'no karma'. But he does not apply it at samsara realm.

'All is Brahman' is not Pantheism. Brahman is sat-chit-ananda, distinct from all phenomena, and is worshippable. Even advaita gurus follow this.

Some may object and be critical of this view, feeling that this is restrictive. I pray to them that they be a bit lenient in their own judgement. IMO, let the basic tenet of Hindu dharma be as it is.

Atheistic or non vedic darsanas have also flourished in India. They should be categorised in their own category and not as Hindu dharma, whose basic tenets are enshrined in Vedas and its darasanas and the prasthanatrayi.

 

[Vinayaka]

Friend Vinayaka,

Sorry to read this after so many years [though immaterial]
could you sum up the outcome of your survey??

Love & rgds

Sure. It never was intended as a survey. It was intended as a way for seekers to help determine if they belonged to a particular faith, and in this case, Hinduism. So it was 'What religion am I?" applied specifically to Hinduism. After my initial post off the top of my head, at least another 20 ideas were added by other Hindus here as to 'things Hindus do, or 'things Hindus believe."

You see, it's difficult for seekers to decide. Then they encounter one branch of Hinduism, and often that's a narrow branch not really representative of the entirety, but still Hindu. In my life I've encountered a few people using the label of Hinduism who really weren't, but just didn't know what else to call themselves, or thought it was cool. But it's not anyone else's job (certainly not mine) to decide, but the individual, motivated by self-reflection and intellectual honesty, has to figure it out by themselves. Something like after a couple of years at university .."Hmmm... maybe this field isn't for me."

Since I joined this forum, only two people that I know of who originally thought they were Hindu, have now come to the conclusion that they actually weren't. So, in that sense, the whole idea was useful. If it promoted self-reflection, then it was a good thing.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Vinayaka,

Thank you for your response.
The idea to enquiry about it was to get the kind of response you have given as there is nothing in "hinduism' that binds and restricts it to a set of actions or whatever; its totally open ended.
Like you mentioned that you take a vote of matters here am sure if you take it on having one on 'Hinduism' am sure since none is particularly 'hindu' would it not be proper not to have a separate section on it, rather have one on dharmic cultures ??
You are free to take a call on it.
Love & rgds

 

[Vinayaka]

I suggest people read the rules pertaining to a blue DIR.

 

[metis]

I apologize as that I thought the DIR mean that one just could not engage in debate, so I'll remove my post right after this.

 

[Vinayaka]

I apologize as that I thought the DIR mean that one just could not engage in debate, so I'll remove my post right after this.

Thank you for understanding this, and I hope you didn't take it in the wrong way. It's not like we're trying to be nasty to people. But unless the rules are followed, what's the point of having coloured sections of the forum at all? One thing that seems to go amiss in all this is that I, and many others of all faiths truly believe in freedom of religion. In other words, it's totally okay to be a member of a non-Hindu (just in this case) religion. We respect the individual's right to choose. But for the benefit of carrying on a discussion, the forum moderators, under general consensus, have categorized it - for the benefit of all.

 

[Vinayaka]

Friend Vinayaka,

Thank you for your response.
The idea to enquiry about it was to get the kind of response you have given as there is nothing in "hinduism' that binds and restricts it to a set of actions or whatever; its totally open ended.
Like you mentioned that you take a vote of matters here am sure if you take it on having one on 'Hinduism' am sure since none is particularly 'hindu' would it not be proper not to have a separate section on it, rather have one on dharmic cultures ??
You are free to take a call on it.
Love & rgds

As usual with your many of you posts, I don't understand it at all. Sorry.

You mean to say that it's (Hinduism) totally open ended, in that absolutely anything goes? Then I would beg to differ.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Vinayaka,

It would a plaesure to be your student to know the points of boundaries in 'hinduism'.

Love & rgds

 

[Vinayaka]

Friend Vinayaka,

It would a plaesure to be your student to know the points of boundaries in 'hinduism'.

Love & rgds

Sorry, you'll have to find a qualified teacher. One Mr. Yamas and another Mr. Niyamas are good teachers, or so I hear.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atanu, yesterday in your post 324 in the topic 'What makes a Hindu a Hindu', you discussed my views which you consider wrong. This is against Rule 10 of the forum.

Now my question to you is 'if you can do that, why I can't do the same? Are the rules of a blue forum different for you than they are for me?' If you had to discuss my views in the topic 'What makes a Hindu a Hindu', why did you not take it to a debate forum?

There is a very apt proverb in Hindi for this kind of action which says 'Āp guruji baingan khāwe, dujon ko pardosh batāwe'. Since the moderators, our Western and non-Hindi speaking members may not understand the meaning, here is it for them: "The guru eats brinjal, but when some other person wants to eat it, he says it is not an auspicious time (Pradosh is considered an inauspicious time in Hindu astrology)."

You (and some other members too) are doing this (writing against the views of a member) but you do not want to give the same freedom to me. This is against the rules of the forum as well as against the rules of 'shastrartha' (Scriptural discussion, if you can call it that) in Hinduism. Hinduism always gave debaters a level play ground.

In all fairness I reserve the right to reply to your objections on my views that you have made in the topics. For future, I am reporting this to the moderators for appropriate action.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is correct view, IMO. A man can be at any ethical stage, but a shraddhA in Veda (with its six darsanas) and prasthanatrayi (upanishads, Brahma sutras, Gita) is considered essential.

Atanu, 'Shraddhā' means respect, reverance. It does not mean that one has to follow them. One can respect another as a brave or intelligent opponent. Respect is not only for friends. Basically, all scriptures that you have mentioned differ greatly in content. One can not follow them all. If you follow Samkhya, you are not following Uttar Mimamsa. There are differences even in one book. For example, Book 10 of RigVeda has 'Nasadiya' Sukta (CXXIX) is atheist saying that Gods came after the creation of the universe, where as 'Ka' Sukta (CXXI) is thoroughly theist. BhagawadGita is advaitist in some verses and dvaitist in others. So, a Hindu may decide to follow one of the views and if not satisfied with any, make his/her own path. That is how different darshanas and matas, panthas, arose in Hinduism. There is no bar against it in Hinduism. I hope you understand this.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, 'Shraddhā' means respect, reverance. ......

More, my dear elder brother.

SraddhA (Itrans)

श्रद्धा

(H2B) श्रद्-धा [p= 1095,3] [L=222328] f. » below
(H2) श्रद्- √ धा [L=222332]
P. A1. -दधाति , -धत्ते (pr. p. श्रद्दधत् , श्रद्-द्/अधान ; Ved. inf. श्रद्ध्/ए cf. श्र्/अत् above ) , to have faith or faithfulness , have belief or confidence , believe , be true or trustful (with न , " to disbelieve " &c ) RV. &c ;

to credit , think anything true (two acc.) MBh. Ka1v. &c ;

to believe or have faith in or be true to (with dat. , and in later language with gen. of thing or person , or with loc. of thing) RV. &c ;

to expect anything (acc.) from (abl.) MBh. ;

to consent , assent to , approve , welcome (with acc. ; with न , " to disapprove ") Katha1s. ;

to be desirous of (acc.) , wish to (inf.) ib. BhP. : Caus. -धापयति , to make faithful , render trustful , inspire confidence RV. x , 151 , 5.

(H2) श्रद्धा [L=222333] f. faith , trust , confidence , trustfulness , faithfulness , belief in (loc. or comp. ; श्रद्धया- √गम् , " to believe in " , with gen. DivyA7v. ), trust , confidence , loyalty (Faith or Faithfulnesses is often personified and in RV. x , 151 invoked as a deity ; in TBr. she is the daughter of प्रजा-पति , and in S3Br. of the Sun ; in MBh. she is the daughter of दक्ष and wife of धर्म ; in Ma1rkP. she is the mother of काम , and in BhP. the daughter of कर्दम and wife of अङ्गिरस् or मन&#2369 RV. &c
[L=222334] wish , desire ( °श्रद्धया ind. " willingly , gladly ") , longing for (loc. acc. with प्रति inf. , or comp.) MBh. Ka1v. &c
[L=222335] desire of eating , appetite Sus3r.
[L=222336] the longing of a pregnant woman Car.
[L=222337] curiosity (श्रद्धाम् आख्याहि नस् तावत् , " just satisfy our curiosity and tell us ") Katha1s.
[L=222338] purity L.
[L=222339] respect , reverence W.

 

[Aupmanyav]

More is not always relevant. It is the last meaning that I had in mind. Why ignore that?
श्रद्धाम् आख्याहि नस् तावत् - I suppose it means 'I am (asking) with respect, kindly inform me' - i.e., it is not a frivolous question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This forum is frequented by many non hindus who may have very little idea of hinduism and will be absolutely confounded to read posts that say "no rebirth", 'no karma', 'no consciousness beyond body 'no deity' etc. This is leading to unnecessary cross talk and trashing of good dialog.

An advaitin such as Ramana Maharshi teaches from the paramarthika level of 'no birth' and thus no 'rebirth'. He teaches of 'no karma'. But he does not apply it at samsara realm.

'All is Brahman' is not Pantheism. Brahman is sat-chit-ananda, distinct from all phenomena, and is worshippable. Even advaita gurus follow this.

IMO, let the basic tenet of Hindu dharma be as it is.

Atheistic or non vedic darsanas have also flourished in India. They should be categorised in their own category and not as Hindu dharma, whose basic tenets are enshrined in Vedas and its darasanas and the prasthanatrayi.

It is particularly important for the reason that many non-Hindus visit this forum to let them know that Hinduism is not just faith in one God like that in Abrahamic religions but it comes in many flavors. Hinduism is special in this respect. It includes monotheists, monists, polytheists, atheists, kenotheists, pantheists, panentheists, henotheists, deists, omnists, transtheists, and agnostics. Actually, there is no religious flavor mentioned in Wikipedia which one cannot find in Hinduism.

Why should we talk only of Samsara realm? Why should one forget the absolute realm? One should understand both because we all exist in two realities (if one goes by Sankara). If one guru follows something, it is not necessary that everyone should follow it. Sankara was an vedantist, but so were Ramanuja, Nimbark, Vallabha, and Chaitanya. They followed different paths.

The basic tenet of Hinduism is to search for truth, read what the great acharyas say, if one can jive with something that they have found, believe it. if not, chart out their own path to what they consider to be truth, irrespective of all obstacles, but never abandon truth.

If you talk of basic tenet, then I have always accepted the existence of Brahman. Though that too is not a basic tenet of Hinduism. As you know, many Hindus believe in hundreds and thousands of Gods and Goddesses. Kindly do not try to impose your views on every one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Friend Vinayaka,

It would a pleasure to be your student to know the points of boundaries in 'Hinduism'.

Dear Zenzero, I give here what I think of the boundary of Hinduism (though I do not know what is a qualified teacher. Some educational qualification? A guru having disciples in US or Europe? In Hinduism, an unlettered weaver raise by a muslim family, Kabir, and a cobbler, Raidas (and many more like them), are considered to be eminently qualified) - a person should follow his dharma, his dharma by nature, that is what Lord Krishna said, and there is no sin in that.

"Shreyan sva-dharmo vigunah, para-dharmat sv-anushthitat;
svabhava-niyatam karma, kurvan napnoti kilbisham." (BhagawadGita 18.47)

(It is better to engage in one's own dharma, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's dharma and perform it perfectly. Dharma prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions.)

Of course, agreeing with Vinayaka, I would say being taught by Mr. Yamas and Mr. Niyamas is essential, otherwise it can hardly be called any education.

 

[atanu]

It is particularly important for the reason that many non-Hindus visit this forum to let them know that Hinduism is not just faith in one God like that in Abrahamic religions but it comes in many flavors. Hinduism is special in this respect. It includes monotheists, monists, polytheists, atheists, kenotheists, pantheists, panentheists, henotheists, deists, omnists, transtheists, and agnostics. Actually, there is no religious flavor mentioned in Wikipedia which one cannot find in Hinduism....

You are a famous man, Mr. Amarnath. You seem to believe in a very special philosophy, but to me it simply is a Lokyaata belief, with the Brahman word thrown in to mislead people.

User:Aupmanyav - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe in existence of Energy (as in physics, light, electricity, etc.) and equate that with 'Brahman'. My 'Brahman' constitutes all things in the universe, assumes all forms, has attributes (physical and not divine) about which we have a lot more to know much even with all our scientific progress. Rama and Krishna are my cultural/mythological heroes. I value them because their stories have given unity and direction to my people, but they are not there to grant me any boons or to save my soul. I think they might have existed in history.
.... When we die, our identity ceases and the energy in our body get recycled. They were part of millions of living and non-living things before I was born; and after my death, they will again become part of millions of living and non-living things.
I believe in this special kind of rebirth. I do not believe in 'Karma' (what will 'Karma' attach to when I am distributed in a million things).

You do not believe in a single basic tenet of Hinduism. You have your own philosophy which is simply re cycled materialism with a word 'brahman' thrown in. You are probably a Lokayata, who wants his agenda imposed imposed on Hindu Dharma.

Which Hindu scripture or Guru teaches that a) Brahman is physical energy as in electricity etc. b) there is no rebirth and c) the karma is not carried forward from life to life till perfection of yoga?

Whatever you may say or do, your brand of brahman is not the brahman that Hindu dharma teaches.

 

[atanu]

And when you say 'Sarve khalu idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman)' and also 'brahman is Energy (as in physics, light, electricity', you are denigrating all the Hindu dharma teachings on brahman, starting with, "brahman is consciousness....".

You are denigrating all scriptures and you are denigrating all teachers. You do not even have the courage to acknowledge that your philosophy is not different from the Lokayata philosophy.