What Makes a Hindu a Hindu?

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

aupmanyav ji , ...do you realy want to reduce your sister to tears !!!....allthough I am well trained in remaining equal in happiness and distress ....there are some things which greive me deeply ......

Atanu, 'Shraddhā' means respect, reverance. It does not mean that one has to follow them.

nor does it mean that one can go against .....'Shraddhā' primarily means 'faith' , that which is 'true' , therefore it means 'beleif' in ,

one 'respects' a thing because one belives that thing to be true .

if one belives in something and doesnot follow it then one is dissrespectfull , ....as by not following it one is going against it !!!


you have just said .....

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.

I too would say that being taught by Gurus Yama and Niyama is esential ,

but do you know the meaning of guru ? ....appart from meaning ones most revered teacher ..it is meaning ....'Heavy' .... having weight of knowledge and experience ...

so when Guru Niyama tells you to do something .... you do it ... and if you cant do it you at least contemplate how to do it ! you do not go against it .

4. Astikya: faith,
5. Ishvarapujana: worship of the Lord, the cultivation of devotion through daily worship and meditation,
6. Siddhanta shravana: scriptural listening, studying the teachings and listening to the wise of one's lineage;
7. Mati: cognition, developing a spiritual will and intellect with the guru's guidance;


patanjali has simplified it to five ...

1. Shaucha: cleanliness of thought, mind and body. Traditionally, this item is listed under Yama; this word means purity.
2. Santosha: happy satisfaction; good contentment.
3. Tapas: spiritual effort; austerity.
4. Svādhyāya: self study, study to know more about God and the soul, which leads to introspection on a greater awakening to the soul and God within.
5. Ishvarapranidhana: surrender to God.

but Nowhere does it say you write your own rules .....and if I am not wrong constantly the instruction is to develop faith in god .

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.

as a Vaisnava and as a Buddhist I will happily tell you this text is not Atheist ...do you not accept that these are Gods of this material universe ?....
it does not mean that there is no supreme 'Isvara'....

Bhagawad Gita 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.

if one is divinely inspired yes , but otherwise NO !

to do so would be pure dissrespect .

That is how different darshanas and matas, panthas, arose in Hinduism. There is no bar against it in Hinduism. I hope you understand this.

please prabhu I hope you understand this .....different darshans arose in hinduism from divine revelations , from realisations and from manifestations of the supreme ....Not from whim or the inability or un willinness to understand !!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

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.

So, you traced me some more. No problem. If you want any more information about me, I would be happy to provide it to you. I do not have anything to hide.

Yes, my philosophy is special. To you it may be a Lokayata belief, but I do not know what Lokayatas believed. If I am stating my belief, how is that misleading people?

I believe in 'dharma' and as you mentioned, in existence of Brahman, something that constitutes everything in the universe. IMHO, Brahman is something close to 'physical energy'. If science finds something against it, I am ready to change my views accordingly. But till that time, I will consider 'physical energy' to be Brahman. Energy is related to all things, mass, space, and time. We do not know all about energy. I think I have mentioned this view in my various posts in the forum.

Well, those who wrote our scriptures are no more. How can they change the scriptures? New people will write new things. My grandfather, Pandit Bishweshwar Nath Reu (Bishweshwar Nath Reu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - He was a Sanskrit scholar, historian and archeologist) wrote a smriti where the change was accepted, perhaps the only book in Hinduism like that, but for some unfathomable reasons it was not allowed to be posted in the forum. And, if you can match it, my clansman, Aupmanyav (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aupamanyava), was a Vedic commentator around 1,000 BC. Studying and discussing Vedas is demonstrably with my clan for 3,000 years. My grandfather wrote two books on RigVeda.

Even Lord Krishna said that there is no death and no birth if you believe in what he is supposed to have said. If there is no death or birth, then where is the question of a rebirth. Furthermore, if there is no rebirth then where is the question of transference of Karma?

"Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin, nāyam bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyah;
ajo nityah sāshvato 'yam purāno, na hanyate hanyamāne sharīre." (BG 2.20)

(There is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.)

You say 'my brand of brahman is not the brahman that Hindu dharma teaches.' Your kind of Brahman is yours and my kind of Brahman is mine. Your kind of Hinduism is yours and my kind of Hinduism is mine. I am not trampling on anybody else's belief. Why should there be any conflict? Why do you want that only your kind of Hinduism should be placed before all people. Nobody has given you any additional authority to ride on views of other people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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....".

I do not think that I have ever denigrated anything about Hinduism, though I may have a differing opinion; and I do not believe that Brahman is consciousness. I do not use the Mahavakya "Prajnanam Brahma" because I do not believe in it. I do believe in the rest of the three, "Tat twam asi", "Ayamatma Brahma", and "Aham Brahmasmi".

 

[atanu]

....

Even Lord Krishna said that there is no death and no birth if you believe in what he is supposed to have said. If there is no death or birth, then where is the question of a rebirth. Furthermore, if there is no rebirth then where is the question of transference of Karma?

"Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin, nāyam bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyah;
ajo nityah sāshvato 'yam purāno, na hanyate hanyamāne sharīre." (BG 2.20)

(There is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.)...

Kindly stop. Krishna has talked of birth-rebirth and then taught about the unborn.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3701061-post45.html

Krishna has not negated a single sruti that you do in every post of yours.

I am again reporting your post as trying to impose Lokyata on Hindu Dharma.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not think that I have ever denigrated anything about Hinduism, though I may have a differing opinion; and I do not believe that Brahman is consciousness.

That may well be what you think. But clearly many others would disagree. Personally, I don't care either way. The newcomer who reads our collective posts most likely can sort it out. Clearly it's not just this they have to sort out, but also the differing posts of many others. If not, then perhaps Guru Aupmanyav, the enlightened one, has one follower.

In a few days I'm going to put together a newer version of 'What makes a Hindu a Hindu" thread so the language is clearer. It came across too much as a test of some sort, rather than the reflective exercise it was meant to be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dear Ratikala:

I have not said that I am against Astikya or Ishwara Pranidhana. Whole of my family believes in Gods and Goddesses. Even my two year-old grandson knows about Mahadev baba, Ma Pabati, Gannu Bhaiyya (Ganesha), Hanuman ji, Ram ji, Sita mata, Sugreeva, Devi mata, Bumma ji (Lord Brahma), Narada ji, Sagara, Menak, Himalaya, Dronagiri, etc. I do not try to make him into an atheist. If he is to be an atheist, he will have to make the decision on his own when he grows up. I, myself, do not worship the manifest or the unmanifest as Mandukya Upanishad says. I believe I am none other than Brahman like the rest of things in the universe. I would look very foolish trying to worship myself.

About modern gurus, I am ambiguous. I take Sankara and Buddha to be my gurus. Another person who helped me to understand what is a war without anger or hate, but a necessity for dharma, was a Keralite Tamil brahmin who was my supervisor in my job. One guru whom I liked very much was Swami Adgadananda of Chunar, I loved to listen to his talks on television. Other than these people, I have not come across any one whom I would accept as my guru. I also liked Kripalu Maharaj and Swami Avadheshananda ji, though the former’s views were diametrically opposite to my views. But the basic thing is that I do not need any guru now. I have completed my search with satisfaction.

What does not allow the freedom to write one’s own views is not Hinduism. This is the greatest property of Hinduism. Hinduism does not gag its adherents. And all Hindus should be proud of this property. How come there are six darshanas in Hinduism, including Samkhya, Vaisesika, and Poorva Mimamsa, which denied the existence of Gods? And how come there are thousands of matas and panthas? Do not make Hinduism into an Abrahamic religion where one cannot differ from a book.

I do not accept that there are two worlds, a spiritual and a physical. I do not accept that spirituality/dharma and science differ. If you differ from science (for example Big Bang or Evolution), then you land into untruth and ignorance. Christianity is loosing its hold in the West for this reason and at one time or the other Islam also will face the same situation. Spirituality and philosophy should not dissociate themselves from science. Whatever I may believe, I do not ask people to stop being theists. I would not say that I am divinely inspired but my inspiration has come from Upanishads, Srimad Bhagawat Purana, SrimadBhagawadGita, and Shri Rama Charit Manas. These four books too are my gurus.

So, Ratikala, do not feel sorrow kindly try to understand me (and request other people too to understand me). I have missed your and their understanding. I am an atheist advaitist Hindu, calling me anything else (a charvak or a lokayat as people have done) is very insulting to me. They should not have done/should not do it. I am not against theists. And if some one engages me in a discussion, I am not one to back down.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even Lord Krishna said that there is no death and no birth if you believe in what he is supposed to have said. If there is no death or birth, then where is the question of a rebirth. Furthermore, if there is no rebirth then where is the question of transference of Karma?

"Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin, nāyam bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyah;
ajo nityah sāshvato 'yam purāno, na hanyate hanyamāne sharīre." (BG 2.20)

(There is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.)

Kindly stop. Krishna has talked of birth-rebirth and then taught about the unborn.

Say that what I have written in not in BhagawadGita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That may well be what you think. But clearly many others would disagree.

Have I given them any reason to think that I have anywhere denigrated Hinduism? Of course, I am an atheist. Have I spoken in any way other than sympathically for the theists? You have more than 2200 of my posts in the last seven years of my membership to this forum. I challenge everyone to find just one sentence where I have denigrated Hinduism or Hindu theism.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Vinayaka & Aupmanyav,

Simply show me what are the limitations as per Hinduism which does not encompass or where any human being on earth does not qualify to be a 'Hindu'.
If there is any such boundary then do share.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Say that what I have written in not in BhagawadGita.

You know that you are not being truthful.

You know that the verse you quoted refers to unborn atman and not to a born jiva such as you, who as a plain ego is trying to impose his ideas on Hindu Dharma.

You know that Gita speaks of repeated births. Gita speaks of conditioned purusha (soul). You know that Gita speaks of Karma and Karma yoga. Karma is so much central in Gita. You know that the last word of Gita is surrender to Ishwara. You know that as per all scriptures, the nature of Atman-Brahman is sat-chit-ananda (and not some physical energy like electricity). You know that scriptures teach that brahman is consciousness.

You do not agree to any of those, but you cherry pick a verse to prove your point.

I repeat the following stated beliefs of yours.

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 disregard every basic tenet of Hindu dharma. None of your belief is supported by scripture or saying of any guru. You have contributed to creation of WIKI pages that try to impose the idea that the Vedic-Sanatana-Hindu dharma was atheistic.

In my humble opinion, you are just trying to impose Lokayata/Charvaka view as that of Hindu dharma.

 

[atanu]

Friend Vinayaka & Aupmanyav,

Simply show me what are the limitations as per Hinduism which does not encompass or where any human being on earth does not qualify to be a 'Hindu'.
If there is any such boundary then do share.

Love & rgds

Although I have not been called out, I wish to add a thing or two here.

Hindu dharma (or sanatana dharma, if you prefer) teaches of a general dharma and a particular dharma. There are specifics in every religion that we should not trample upon, although the end of all region is in the great ocean.

In Gita, Shri Krishna teaches "There is no purifier as jnana" and yet he prescribes the path of bhakti as a preferable one, since according to Him, the path of bhakti is the easier one. This is just one example.

If you are really interested, I invite you to read the following writing of Kanchi Seer, Chandrasekhara Saraswati, from his book "Hindu Dharma".

Distinctive Features of Sanathan Dharama from the Chapter "The Vedic Religion: Introductory", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

You may as well slowly read the full book. Regards. Best.

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

thanks for responding though not named cause found their responses to my query.
[not important as we are interacting not as individual's here]

Am not learned as others here in as much as scriptures etc. are concerned but do understand that in the culture each individual meditator had his own unique experiences which many shared and got written down but most may not have written them but still we can understand that since every individual is separate and so experiences too will differ and so would be the paths.
If Krishna mentions his preferences keeping majority humans in mind he does not negate any other path nor mentions boundaries.
Personal understanding remains that if any seer who is enlightened can never draw any lines anywhere but like Krishna discuss preferences depending on his majority followers.
Such is not Hinduism but is the culture of this land and labelled 'sanatan dharma'

Though am poor in reading much these days [age and preferences having evolved] still like anyone to bring out such lines which demarcate boundaries without QUALIFYING it.
The qualifications could have limitations due to either the audience or the speaker which is not universal and so "Hinduism' should not be made to suffer limitations due to our own limitations of our own minds.
No-Mind / Consciousness is unlimited and dharma is SO or else it falls into adharma by itself.

Love & rgds

 

[Poeticus]

Friend atanu,

thanks for responding though not named cause found their responses to my query.
[not important as we are interacting not as individual's here]

Am not learned as others here in as much as scriptures etc. are concerned but do understand that in the culture each individual meditator had his own unique experiences which many shared and got written down but most may not have written them but still we can understand that since every individual is separate and so experiences too will differ and so would be the paths.
If Krishna mentions his preferences keeping majority humans in mind he does not negate any other path nor mentions boundaries.
Personal understanding remains that if any seer who is enlightened can never draw any lines anywhere but like Krishna discuss preferences depending on his majority followers.
Such is not Hinduism but is the culture of this land and labelled 'sanatan dharma'

Though am poor in reading much these days [age and preferences having evolved] still like anyone to bring out such lines which demarcate boundaries without QUALIFYING it.
The qualifications could have limitations due to either the audience or the speaker which is not universal and so "Hinduism' should not be made to suffer limitations due to our own limitations of our own minds.
No-Mind / Consciousness is unlimited and dharma is SO or else it falls into adharma by itself.

Love & rgds

There are hundreds of these "demarcations"
in the rg-veda alone. Also, are you Hindu,
Zenzero? I ask because as you can see, this
DIR has now become blue; and only self-
identified Hindus can post here. Otherwise,
it's a constant rule #10 violation. Therefore,
please respect the rules that have been
established by the administrators of RF.​

 

[Poeticus]

I challenge everyone to find just one sentence where I have denigrated Hinduism or Hindu theism.

You would lose your own challenge, Aup.
The better question to ask would have
rather been:

Please find one instance wherein I have
not denigrated Hinduism/Hindu theism.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

You know that the verse you quoted refers to unborn atman and not to a born jiva such as you, who as a plain ego is trying to impose his ideas on Hindu Dharma.

Tell me which word in the verse means 'atma' (soul)? Inserting 'atma' as Prabhupada's translations do is many a times a interpolation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have contributed to creation of WIKI pages that try to impose the idea that the Vedic-Sanatana-Hindu dharma was atheistic.

My debate in Wikipedia was not about theism or atheism, but about terming Hinduism as originating from and being Vedic religion. I still maintain that view. Hinduism that most Hindus follow today has not much to do with Vedic religion or Vedic Gods and Goddesses. Most Hindus follow rituals and festivals which are not mentioned in Vedas and worship Gods and Goddesses who find no mention in the Vedas. I have argued for that even in this forum. To term Hinduism as Vedic religion is a fallacy. It is mostly indigenous. Of course atheistic views are mentioned in the Vedas and some of the later philosophies were patently atheistic. Being an atheist is not an anathema in Hinduism. After all Nireeshwaravada is a Hindu/Sanskrit/Hindi word.

 

[Poeticus]

I have argued for that even in this forum.

And, that's the problem, Aup. You
are not allowed to engage in debate
or argue in a DIR. That is where the
Same Faith Debates comes in - to
which you have received countless
invitations.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Simply show me what are the limitations as per Hinduism which does not encompass or where any human being on earth does not qualify to be a 'Hindu'. If there is any such boundary then do share.

In my opinion, there is only one way to identify a person as a Hindu. You ask a person what 'dharma' he/she follows. If the person says Hindu Dharma, then he/she is a Hindu. Differences, there would be millions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You would lose your own challenge, Aup. The better question to ask would have rather been:

Please find one instance wherein I have not denigrated Hinduism/Hindu theism.

Poeticus, either way, my challenge stands.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And, that's the problem, Aup. You are not allowed to engage in debate or argue in a DIR. That is where the Same Faith Debates comes in - to which you have received countless invitations.

There have been many debates since the time when I joined. The DIR was not always blue. It is nearing seven years now. Zenzero joined the forum a little earlier than me. I remember to have interacted with Zenzero at that time too.