What Makes a Hindu a Hindu?

[Aupmanyav]

Just as how you have a right to call yourself a Hindu Atheist, they have every right to call or treat Hinduism as Vedic (which isn't far off the bat). While support for Hindu Atheism cuts off the bat's edge into the wicket keeper's gloves, those monopolizers have scriptural backing that makes their point(s) run to the boundary like a new ball being straight drive-d by Lara.

Yes, Poeticus, I know majority wins. Just as you were able to turn the Hinduism DIR blue, it is not a question of right or wrong. That is why I abandoned my effort at Wikipedia. I hope some body better than me will come in future and be able to correct the mistake of calling Hinduism a Vedic religion, when most of its Gods and Goddesses do not find mention in the Vedas and the Vedic Gods other than Vishnu and Saraswati are not popular among Hindus. Hinduism is more than just being a Vedic religion. You are doing injustice to the native beliefs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And I resent calling MJ or any other human being a monkey as well in a derogatory sense, not that I am being disrespectful to primates.

Do you also consider pedophilia to be 'dharma'?

 

[Ravi500]

Do you also consider pedophilia to be 'dharma'?

That is not something to be discussed over here.

Dharma is truth in action. Adharma is untruth in action.

Is it 'dharma' ( righteous action ) to misinterpret the scriptural teachings according to your own fancies , disregarding the sages and your own co-members over here !!

Is it dharma ( righteous action ) to disregard Krishna's teachings on Bhakti and flaunting an atheistic view over here.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,

A rapist may have been born in a Hindu family, but he is 'adham', did not follow 'dharma' (which would be for a man to save a woman in such a situation), he is 'pashavika', a 'pashu' and not a human, because his 'manushyata' has ended. He is no more a hindu, he is a 'pishacha' (paishachika). I would think that the punishment for such a crime in traditional Hinduism would be death. Exile or ex-communication would not be enough. If the person then marries the raped women, it would be termed as 'pishacha vivaha' or something like that, but one which was never praised in Hinduism.

The point is missed again.
show scriptures that says that 'pishacha' are not hindus.
Daku Ratnakar was a dacoit, was he not a hindu?
adharmis as mentioned in another post too remain within the fold of dharma except that instead of evolving at a faster rate they will take more time to evolve to go to the next level of existence after humans but everyone has to evolve.
Love & rgds

 

[Generic_user_5]

What Makes a Hindu a Hindu? is wrong question coz you are born hindu and noone can make you hindu..but they can sleek you away from the core.
Hinduism is not a religion neither atheism nor dogmatic thought to be contained in such timid thought process..even the person who oppose lord krishna even veda's can proudly call himself hindu.
thanks and regards

 

[Ravi500]

What Makes a Hindu a Hindu? is wrong question coz you are born hindu and noone can make you hindu..but they can sleek you away from the core.
Hinduism is not a religion neither atheism nor dogmatic thought to be contained in such timid thought process..even the person who oppose lord krishna even veda's can proudly call himself hindu.
thanks and regards

Looks like troll activity.

I know of a few born Hindus converted to other religions on their own will. Would they be still considered Hindus !!

Ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ridiculous nonsense.

(I tried to frubal you, but I guess I have to spread some around first.)

No kidding. Ask a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a member of any non-Hindu faith ... "Are you a Hindu?" I suspect you'd get some strange looks, and emphatic, No!" s.

If that's the case, then there is no need for a Hindu DIR at all, because everyone can come in and say whatever the heck they want.

But our newcomer, unfortunately, isn't alone in his beliefs. Apparently quite a few people believe it.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram THF.com :namaste

welcome to RF ....

What Makes a Hindu a Hindu? is wrong question coz you are born hindu and noone can make you hindu..but they can sleek you away from the core.

this might be true if one is thinking of Hinduism as being a cultural divide ...

but here in this conversation we are speaking of Hinduism as a faith in which case one can develop a faith , likewise if one belives in the principes and upholds those principles then one automaticaly becomes a Hindu ...

Hinduism is not a religion neither atheism nor dogmatic thought to be contained in such timid thought process..even the person who oppose lord krishna even veda's can proudly call himself hindu.
thanks and regards

yes he may call himself a cultural Hindu , ....but that is the question of this thread , here we are discussing what practices we must keep and what principles we must uphold before we can call our selves Hindu?

may I ask you a question , as a Hindu do you beleive in reincarnation ?

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I think this is actually about promoting some other, rather new, forum.

I visited that other forum, it seems obviously only a few months old if that, it is a Hindu forum but I found it odd that the sections in the webforum are using CHRISTMAS TREE decorations (the balls used on such trees), as well as motifs using green-red MISTLETOE plant, both of these are CHRISTIAN symbols but I think the admin of this new forum doesn't realize this. The grammer is really bad, too - but heck, that is almost normal considering.

I might join in just to see what it is about, but it may not be a welcoming site and seems sort of, well, basic or simple. But it may be too much, joining yet another, that would be the fourth one I would be joining, and most have no real Gurus or those who are true teachers and such and some are pretty slow and sort of, well, silly. I think I am getting just a bit "pooped out" with "Internet Hinduism" - which is not the same as "Hinduism". And the whole Hindu-web is sort of turning into personality contests and "grudge matches". Then we start to see this plethora of "new (Hindu) forums", but probably these are spin ups by some member who wants to control some sort of dialog.

Should the question be, "What is a Hindu?" or "What is an Internet Hindu?" ...

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[zenzero]

Friend Atanu,

(I am disappointed that you declined to read the page suggested by me. Does not matter though).

The reason for not taking reading much forward as mentioned is age and preference for pure DHYANA or Zen.
Just visited your link and read few lines and as usual realised that the MIND of someone is showing there as he tries to bring out differences when in reality the differences are all due to evolution.
Dharmic culture in this land and further east has evolved to levels were others have not reached and so they follow someone close to them who has tasted enlightenment and has to get others behind his way keeping in mind the stage of evolution his followers are presently in and so his ways will cater to them even though individually the enlightened person knows the unlimited nature of existence/life that every form belongs to.
So, kindly understand that if we are limiting our dharma in any way which divides human beings we still remain a part of ADHARMA.

Though understand what you bring out here; personally leave such matter to each one's own karma as the journey undertaken by each of us as body/mind/consciousness is unique in time and space in relation to consciousness. The journey been individual and there being nothing as good or bad except the two sides of a pendulum where each swings from one side to the other some consciously others unconsciously and only when one reach to the peak of his consciousness one realises that its all about the balance which is at the very centre just in the centre where it is neither this side or that just that like life it is constantly in motion but remains disciplined/balanced/ conscious.
None of us is perfect in our bodies but on the other hand when we realise that LIFE is perfect even the dacoit or the poster here and can smile/laugh at this beautiful consciousness in various forms of which we are a part off then nothing matters as everything is perfect.

Sorry the mind feels limited to use any label for the dharma practise of this land as Lao Tsu mentions in his Tao Te Ching's 1st stanza:

Tao (The Way) that can be spoken of is not the Constant Tao’
The name that can be named is not a Constant Name.
Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The named is the Mother of all things.
Thus, the constant void enables one to observe the true essence.
The constant being enables one to see the outward manifestations.
These two come paired from the same origin.
But when the essence is manifested,
It has a different name.
This same origin is called “The Profound Mystery.”
As profound the mystery as It can be,
It is the Gate to the essence of all life.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Friend Atanu,
....
Just visited your link and read few lines and as usual realised that the MIND of someone is showing there as he tries to bring out differences when in reality the differences are all due to evolution. ...

Love & rgds

Well. Well. I see you seeing difference, here. ha ha.

Is a table same as a chair? Is it necessary all the time to say both are wood only? Do we not see the functional aspects and the differences there of. If not, then I respectfully disagree.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Well. Well. I see you seeing difference, here. ha ha.

praNAm
What does that mean? I don't seem to get the joke. Where did he state that he was seeing difference. Is it by pointing out that he is went to the website (establishing a kartA-karaNa-karma relationship, and hence a subtle form of ahaMkAra)?

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

Do we not see the functional aspects and the differences there of. If not, then I respectfully disagree.

Yes, its all there but as forms of THAT which is ONE.
Yes disagreement is the other side of agreement.
When attachment to either is not there only then IT simply IS!

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Friend Atanu,
...
None of us is perfect in our bodies but on the other hand when we realise that LIFE is perfect even the dacoit or the poster here and can smile/laugh at this beautiful consciousness in various forms of which we are a part off then nothing matters as everything is perfect.

Friend atanu,

Yes, its all there but as forms of THAT which is ONE.
Yes disagreement is the other side of agreement.
When attachment to either is not there only then IT simply IS!

Love & rgds

I am in agreement with the above. It is the basic teaching of Veda that most Hindu gurus teach that the truth is one. That said, allow me to repeat what I said earlier.

Most Hindu teachers will teach two aspects: the General and the Particular. The greatest general is the Brahman, which by sruti definition and by experience of Seers cannot be different at different times and places. Brahman is non -dual. Now, Hindu gurus, including Shri Shri Chandrasekhara Saraswati, teach that all religions are pointing to this non dual truth, since dual truth cannot free one from fear and death.

For record, I am linking to Sri Sri Saraswati's page on the 'Commonalities' of all religions.

Hindu Dharma: Religion In General : kamakoti.org

Now, Hindu darsana has a very basic premise that the pratyakshya (the evident) is a valid pramana (proof). So, Hinduism also upholds the Particulars of all religions. In this, the Self realised teachers do not assert superiority of one over the other, simply because for a true teacher all manifestations are of Ishwara -- the God.

It is the weakness and ignorance in us that sees things as different from each other. Shri Krishna teaches in Gita that it is faulty view to see discrete things as different from each other. He gives example of a necklace where all beads are tied to a single string.

So, a mature person, IMO, will not nurture any hatred against any other faith.

Sri Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswati then also talks of the Particulars of the Vedic Dharma. Again for record purpose I am linking the page.

Hindu Dharma: The Vedic Religion: Introductory : kamakoti.org

...............

Vedanta has a sruti "The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman". Now, this many Hindu teachers believe and teach. Many Hindu teachers oppose this also. Those who hold to this sruti teaching cannot see any difference in any Self Realised sage/monk/rishi. Like Buddha says "The Monk who has gone other shore is deep, unfathomable". Similarly most Hindu gurus will detest passing negative comments about any other teacher. There is a recent trend however, within Hinduism, to discredit such teachers. That will surely pass. People do not stop from denigrating Sita or even God. What of a guru in human frame?

But, IMO, this Vedantic teaching that "A knower of Brahman becomes Brahman" is not a knowledge (or at least not prominent) in any other religion, including Buddhism.

And there lies the source of tension, IMO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The point is missed again. show scriptures that says that 'pishacha' are not hindus. Daku Ratnakar was a dacoit, was he not a hindu? adharmis as mentioned in another post too remain within the fold of dharma except that instead of evolving at a faster rate they will take more time to evolve to go to the next level of existence after humans but everyone has to evolve.

Zenzero, even a rapist or a murderer is Brahman. Even Pot Pot and Osma, Hitler and Stalin, were none other than Brahman. But this is a question at 'Vyavaharika' level where a society has to be maintained and examples of good and bad behavior are to be considered. That is why Lord Rama was constrained to exile Mother Sita. Punishment for bad deeds is the 'dharma' of the ruler/guardians of the society, and there is no sin in doing that to safeguard the rest of the society. By being members of a society, they are under this obligation. If someone does not do it, then the person should face consequences, which of course in unfortunate for both, the individual and the society. I go by this view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

(BTW, I have put Aup. on the Ignore list. I do not think that there is any value in dialog with him. It is not that I dislike an atheist or I dislike Aup. I have regards for him as my elder. But it is pointless to have dialog when there is no dialog. ha ha ).

Good Atanu, and thanks. You should not discuss my views in the DIR, after all, Hinduism is a blue DIR.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism is not a religion neither atheism nor dogmatic thought to be contained in such timid thought process..even the person who oppose lord krishna even veda's can proudly call himself hindu.

That is not correct, THF. Atheism or non-dogmatic thought can be discussed by a Hindu, but a Hindu cannot disrespect (he may not worship) Lord Krishna or Vedas. With that the person would loose his respect among Hindus, though he may continue calling himself a Hindu. I am an atheist Hindu, but I do not disrespect Lord Krishna or the Vedas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

may I ask you a question, as a Hindu do you believe in reincarnation?

He has not mentioned himself as a Hindu on the profile page. As you know, I do not believe in reincarnation, but that does not make me a non-Hindu. If I am Brahman, then how could I die? Did not Lord Krishna say that there is no birth or death - "Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin" - There is neither birth nor death at any time. (BG 2.20)

But I do not think whatever we write is going to change his views. He comes here with an agenda.

 

[Makaranda]

Aupmanyav,

As you know, I do not believe in reincarnation, but that does not make me a non-Hindu. If I am Brahman, then how could I die? Did not Lord Krishna say that there is no birth or death - "Na jāyate mriyate vā kadāchin" - There is neither birth nor death at any time. (BG 2.20)

With respect you have said elsewhere and on your wiki page that 'when I die' and 'after I die', meaning, when your body dies. Since you reject the existence of an eternal Atma inhabiting the body, however, your view is contradictory. Your wiki page says:

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.

Therefore, you will truly die. If there is no permanent identity, no permanent Atma (which is what Krishna is referring to when he says there is no birth or death- there is no birth or death for Atma, which is Brahman), then you are as good as the body, therefore when you die there is no more 'I'- no more identity. Thus how can you say you are the eternal Brahman? You are a speck of dust illumined by a momentary ray of light (sentience) and blown about by the winds of change and death. Read the thirtieth verse of the second chapter of the Gita from which you are quoting here. The topic of discussion is the embodied self, which is to say, the content of the word 'you', and this 'embodied' self is the Atma, which is eternal. It is the Atma which does not die. To simply say there is no birth or death at any time entirely ignores the context of the passage- the context is, there is no birth or death at any time for the Atma. In the vyavAharika realm, in the transactional world, there is indeed birth and death, and reincarnation. And Ishwara. And devas. And karma. And...

 

[Poeticus]

And...

And...​