Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Hindu: According To Me

  1. #1
    Join Date
    June 2009
    Location
    New Delhi
    Age
    31
    Posts
    89
    Rep Power
    117

    Hindu: According To Me

    Namaste All,

    I have been thinking about Hindu. Basically how you would define it. I won't go into the geographical and historical aspect but what it means to as in its present and if I can say a bit globalized form. Right so here it goes.

    A Hindu is the one who realizes that It is the greatest receptor (conscious being) in the universe, treats the Law Of Karma as the driving force behind all universal occuring and constantly works towards moksha in all Its births.

    How does this defination serve me:

    1. It gets rid of the historical and georgraphical aspects that is political complications.

    2. Since I believe that once a hindu always a hindu that is why I used the term realizes. So that when people from other faiths or no faith convert to Hindu Dharma, I am able to accept it. Personally without this defination I have no idea how this can be done. And I feel that quite a few Hindus agree with me on this. So this term realizes is very important.

    3. This defination focuses only on the spiritual aspect of Hindu Dharma and not the religious one. And this is how I like to keep it.

    4. Next it sidelines all people born as Hindus who convert to other faiths. Since they never realized it, they were never Hindu. I mean sometimes you feel bad when it happens, and this way you don't feel bad.

    5. Then It because Hindu is without gender. And capitalized because the soul is the most important thing in the Universe.

    6. And now this one gets a bit personal. Hindus are always concerned about the quality and not the quanity, so people who are born as Hindus, but remain as Hindus but don't realize this cannot be considered as Hindus. Of course since their is no way of actually knowing this, this point only has a theoretical aspect without any practical implementation. But this fact encourages me to open up to the Universe which is very friendly.

    Major Drawback (if you think it to be one):

    I think it fails to differentiate between Hundu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh. But this really doesn't matter to me.

    What can be debated?

    The meaning of the term realizes. No two souls are alike and hence the term itself has different meanings for every individual. But there can some things that can be said to generalize it. But I have no idea what to include and what not to.

    --------------------------------
    But anyways there are major faults in it as many of you will point out. So what do you think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    Namasté

    eriko writes,
    I think it fails to differentiate between Hundu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh. But this really doesn't matter to me.
    Regarding this Hindu word - I think think of it as a broad brush stoke. Hence when saying 'Hindu' many people (at least in the West) get one impression form this word as it fails to communicate the richness underneath it.

    We know 'Hindu' tends to capture the 3 to 4 ~main~ denominations i.e Śaivite, Viṣṇavite, Śāktaṃ and Smārtism views of devotion and worship. Underneath these are multiple views and approaches for each.
    Many times śaḍ darśana ( 6 views/insights on dharma) are also co-mingled into these denominations. This adds to the complexity and differences (viśeṣa - distinction and particular merits) overall of a simpler discussion.


    For me I continue to say sanātana dharma , ārṣa dharma ( dharma of the ṛṣi-s) in lieu of Hinduism. For me it is more descriptive and suites the knowledge, adoration, etc. I wish to study and engage in.

    FYI -Christians say the same… 'Christianity' is the umbrella, yet have various denominations and views e.g. Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, etc. That is neither here or there in this conversation but worthy of note.

    It allows us to view their religion as a one word-impression, but know there is diversity and multiple POV's below it.
    Now any time even the word 'Christian' is offered here on HDF it tends to incite ( to my chagrin) some verbal abuse on these people. This is not my intent - I am not equating in any way (shape or form) that there is some similarity between sanātana dharma and Christianity ( my required disclaimer to not incite unsavory behavior )

    praṇām
    Last edited by yajvan; 29 October 2009 at 12:54 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2009
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    0

    this fact encourages me to open up to the Universe which is very friendly

    Quote Originally Posted by eriko View Post

    1. It gets rid of the historical and geographical aspects that is political complications.

    3. This definition focuses only on the spiritual aspect of Hindu Dharma and not the religious one. And this is how I like to keep it.

    5. the soul is the most important thing in the Universe.

    this fact encourages me to open up to the Universe which is very friendly.

    So what do you think?
    Namasté Eriko
    J
    I have a few thoughts stimulated by your post which I would enjoy sharing with you.

    I agree that keeping the focus on the spiritual is a good approach. When our self identification depends on the body, the location of our birth or even that of our parents origins we start to base our lives on history and materialism. We risk missing a more subtle but profound truth. This I feel you touch on.

    In my individual experience I have no choice on my religion. What I have come to understand is that although many different religions exist (in and out of Hinduism) all exist in Brahman. My failure to understand the Truth in any religion is due to the veil of ignorance and my misidentification with the material or conceptual play of Maya.

    Alas I cannot even call ‘myself’ a Hindu, for I am only conscious of being bliss.

    Thank you for your post, all of which I enjoyed. I quoted a few key thoughts above which remain with me right now.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    namaste eriko.

    Quote Originally Posted by eriko View Post
    A Hindu is the one who realizes that It is the greatest receptor (conscious being) in the universe, treats the Law Of Karma as the driving force behind all universal occuring and constantly works towards moksha in all Its births.

    Hindus are always concerned about the quality and not the quanity, so people who are born as Hindus, but remain as Hindus but don't realize this cannot be considered as Hindus.
    I can have umpteen definitions about who is a Hindu and who is not, feel elated about their supposed spirituality, brevity and objectivity, and then go gaga about them pronouncing 'Hey, this one is a Hindu, this one is not by this definition', but all my attempts would be pathetic, unless even my personal-and-to-me-only definitions

    • acknowledge the authority of the Vedas

    • recognize and revere the ancient land and culture that gave me the true knowledge and the means to attain it.

    As Yajvan has pointed out subtly and Snip more openly, I need to acknowledge and revere the origin, which is always materialistic in manifest creation, because it is akin to the reverence I show towards my mother.

    The defintion you have given, although intended to focus on the spiritual aspect rather than the dharmic rituals and practices that are worldy, suffers from deficiencies that include:

    • First of all, how do I know about the 'It'? By hearsay? From the textbooks? From the Internet? Or from my own Self-Realization? Even for my own Self-Realization, I need to know about 'It' first, so how do I know it?

    The answer to all these questions, is the Vedas. Only the Vedas have taught me that I am not what I am or what I seem to be, and that I am the divine Tat. Just as a Christian or Muslim or a person of any other religion cannot talk about his religion without remembering its 'Bible' and its 'Prophet', as a Hindu, I cannot talk about my religion in any other sense except as the Vedic religion.

    • The knowledge of the Vedas was 'heard', and 'seen' and then disseminated to us by the great Rishis who are the forefathers of all Hindus. I cannot talk about the laws of motion or force of gravity in science without remembering the name of Newton; about the Bible without remembering the names of the Apostles; of the Quran, ignoring the name of Mohammad. But then I talk about my own Vedas day in and day out until the side edges of my mouth are sour or my typewriting fingers develop cramps and yet do not know the name of a single Rishi who gave me the knowledge! This is a strength--not a weakness--of a Hindu because a Hindu only needs to remember, not the names of the Rishis but the fact that the Vedas were given to mankind by the Rishis.

    • It is alright to say that I am a Hindu although I am not born in India, but who am I to say that a Hindu born in India and in Hinduism is not a Hindu because he/she has not realized It or have such and such other qualifications?

    Where is Hinduism and the concept of Hindus without the ancient India, her citicizens and her global culture--the Sanatana Dharma that she gave the world and proved its efficacy by her citizens remaining as living examples of the Dharma for centuries--if not thousands--of years until the apple cart was upset by the Islamic and European invasions?

    Thus, any definition and conviction about Hinduism and Hindus, even a personal one, that ignores the source and seeks to be exclusive rather than inclusive, can only help to fan our ego rather than advance us towards Self-Realization.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Age
    64
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post

    • acknowledge the authority of the Vedas

    • recognize and revere the ancient land and culture that gave me the true knowledge and the means to attain it.

    (...), any definition and conviction about Hinduism and Hindus, even a personal one, that ignores the source and seeks to be exclusive rather than inclusive, can only help to fan our ego rather than advance us towards Self-Realization.
    Namaste saidevo,

    I have seen definitions given by Indian sages that would make a Hindu out of me - you have a nice collection of definitions in your very interesting library (thank you for your work), but I feel I am really not familiar enough with Indian culture to accept being called a Hindu. I am a yogi and a cultural Christian. That is also why here, I will rather say something about the religions and cultures I know (but trying to adapt to HDF-readers) than participating in the most typically "Indian" discussions, in which I could only make myself ridiculous. Your definition based on the vedas has often been used humourously by satay, when someone turns up here to reveal that Joseph Smith, or whatever his sect-leader may be, was already mentioned in the Vedas. Satays irony did not suggest to me he was not serious about his definition.

    Nevertheless, for me it is difficult to link something universal, Sanatana Dharma, to a certain place, the name itself forbidding its association with a specific time. Unlike Christians, Hindus do not have to invent the most complicated explanations to escape condemning all human beings who have never heard of Jesus. For example: being born before their "saviour", Socrates had to be considered as burning in everlasting hellfire (but they even managed to make a Christian saint out of him - when I think of it, I shed tears laughing, although one could also cry). Hindus do not teach, like the Muslims, that before the coming of their "prophet", the whole world was steeped in jamahiliyya (ignorance - a concept quite different from Sanskrit avidya). But of course, the historical, cultural, chronological aspects exist and one can choose to use them in definitions.

    Now I have a question about Sanatana Dharma's geographical home. One of my two yoga teachers told me there is an old Hindu world map on which Europe is considered as belonging to Bharata and its religion, even as far as Ireland! This does make some sense to me, as my European ancesters had traditions that were similar to, and akin to, Hinduism (though probably much more primitive). The riches of these ancient cults can only be vaguely guessed because Christians destroyed, among other things, most books. I can imagine that Hindus regarded our ancesters as "kinfolk" (genetically and linguistically this is true; even Tamil is a far relative of European languages: Hungarian, Finnish). Unfortunately, I cannot find that map. Does anyone here know of it?

    With regard to fanning the ego and a (different) question of origin, my other yoga teacher, who is my guru, had me admit my vanity about an achievement I was proud of one day. She asked: how can you be vain about that when it all comes from God? After hearing this, I could no longer be proud of anything. She noticed this too, and the next time I saw her, she pointed out to me that pride is not vanity.

    Perhaps this makes it possible to define Hinduism by its Indian origin without fanning a national ego.
    Last edited by Gotam; 30 October 2009 at 05:24 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    namaskar,

    Which posts of mine are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gotam View Post
    Namaste saidevo,

    Your definition based on the vedas has often been used humourously by satay, when someone turns up here to reveal that Joseph Smith, or whatever his sect-leader may be, was already mentioned in the Vedas. Satays irony did not suggest to me he was not serious about his definition.
    satay

  7. #7
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    Eriko: I think the title of the thread says a lot. There are 1 billion or so 'me...s' and perhaps that many definitions. I've been told I can't be one, I'm a genuine one, I'm a baby in it, I'm an enthusiastic one, a fake one, a pseudo one. The list goes on.

    So you are reflecting on this word. That is a good thing, especially the 'reflecting' part.
    I am no longer 'reflecting' on this word. That is also a good thing. My resolution is as follows. I am a Hindu. As simple as that. No need for a definition.

    Aum Namasivaya

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Age
    64
    Posts
    29
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    Quote Originally Posted by satay View Post
    namaskar,

    Which posts of mine are you referring to?
    Namaste satay,

    posts like this one:

    Quote Originally Posted by satay View Post
    As this articles "proves", muhamad was a Hindu and so in light of this new scholary research, all muslims should accept dharma and worship shiva as their only Lord.

    I welcome all mullahs to the Dharmic Fold.
    I hope I wasn't too inaccurate.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    Namasté

    Gotam offers the following,

    Now I have a question about Sanatana Dharma's geographical home. One of my two yoga teachers told me there is an old Hindu world map on which Europe is considered as belonging to Bharata and its religion, even as far as Ireland!
    This post is not to convince , but to inspire

    The geographical home is that of dirt, longitude and latitude. Interesting indeed, but not as insightful of offering the real home of sanātana dharma. I think of one place, albeit it is not on the earth's surface. If I may let me explain.

    As mentioned sanātana dharma is predicated on ārṣa dharma ( dharma of the ṛṣi-s). And where is this knowledge then located for them to access this wisdom? akara ( the Imperishable).

    A key sūkta in the veda (ṛg ved 1.164.39) says the following:
    co akṣare parame vyoman yasmin devā adhi viśve niṣeduḥ |
    yastan na veda kiṃ ṛcā kariṣyati ya it tad vidusta ime samāsate ||

    some may prefer to read it like this:
    richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
    yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.

    What does this say?

    The veda or ks, reside in the transcendental field or akara ( the Imperishable) , of the highest (parame) Being (vyoman) in which reside all the adhi viśve devā-s (or impulses of creative intelligence, the laws of Nature, the home of all knowledge), responsible for the whole manifest universe.
    He whose awareness is not open (na veda) to this field, what can the verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality ( that is, the Realized ones, the ṛṣi-s - this is implied in the sūkta) established in evenness (samāsate or rest contented, balanced) , in That ( tad or Brahman, fullness-wholeness of life).

    It is the ṛṣi-s that bring us the wisdom, insights, the Operating Manual if you will, of this known universe. They have cognized, seen and heard this wisdom. It was not their job to ponder ~ think-up~ and write down ideas like philosophers we read about from Ancient Greece - albeit wonderful knowledge and worthy of merit.

    This knowledge was viewed/heard in their own level of Being ( akara the Imperishable). For this many residing pon this good earth we are grateful.

    praṇām
    Last edited by yajvan; 31 October 2009 at 11:06 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  10. #10
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Hindu: According To Me

    This post may or may not inspire, but it is certainly an attempt to convince...

    I can't understand why the overseas Hindus who embrace Hinduism as their religion in life cannot come around to acknowledge India as the motherland of the religion and culture or the Rishis as the forefathers of the knowledge of the Vedas. I am a bit surprised that people like Yajvan should dismiss geography as "dirt, longitude and latitude" with a seeming undertone of comtempt for geography and the related history.

    After all, we live in a geographical land. We have a motherland. And for all Hindus, India is the fatherland, if you prefer. I am not talking about the India of the present times, but of India that was bhArat (it is still bhArat, of course, but only in the Indian Constitution).

    The same Rig Veda that speaks of the Arsha dharma of the Rishis, which is akShara, also speaks of an array of the kings of bhAratavarsha, which includes shrI rAma. akShara is imperishable, of course, but when it dawns as a dharma of the populace, it takes a physical, historical, geographical, cultural and human shape. And that was the Arsha dharma of the Rishs who gave it to the world as SanAtana Dharma, as the ancient Indian civilization migrated from India to the farthest parts of the world in all directions.

    Here are some Rig Veda sUktas (which are also key sUktas) that speak of famous ancient Indian Kings:

    1. On King bharata, son of dushyanta and shakuntala--the name bhArata for India is from his name:

    tvAmILe adha dvitA bharato vAjibhiH shunam |
    Ije yaj~neShu yaj~niyam || 6.016.04

    6.016.4 Thee, too, hath Bharata of old, with mighty men, implored for bliss.
    And worshipped thee the worshipful.

    2. On King santanu, king of pratIpa of the lunar dynasty, and father of the famous bhIShma of the mahAbhArata:

    bR^ihaspate pratime devatAmihi mitro vA yad varuNo vAsi pUShA |
    AdityairvA yad vasubhirmarutvAn sa parjanyaM shaMtanave vR^iShAya || 10.098.01

    10.098.1. COME, be thou Mitra, Varuna, or Pusan, come, O Brhaspati, to mine oblation:
    With Maruts, Vasus, or Adityas, make thou Parjanya pour for Santanu his rain-drops.

    3. On King ajAmIdha, a famous king of the puru vaMsha:

    nU no rayiM puruvIraM bR^ihantaM dasrA mimAthAm ubhayeShvasme |
    naro yad vAm ashvinA stomam Avansadhastutim AjamILhAso agman || 4.044.06

    4.044.6 Now for us both, mete out, O WonderWorkers, riches exceeding great with store of heroes,
    Because the men have sent you praise, O Asvins, and Ajamilhas come to the laudation.

    4. On King mAndhAtR, a king of pre-eminence in the IkshvAku dynasty:

    yAbhiH sUryaM pariyAthaH parAvati mandhAtAraM kShaitrapatyeShvAvatam |
    yAbhirvipraM pra bharadvAjamAvataM tAbhirUShu UtibhirashvinA gatam || 1.112.13

    1.112.13 Wherewith ye, compass round the Sun when far away, strengthened Mandhatar in his tasks as lord of lands,
    And to sage Bharadvaja gave protecting help,--Come hither unto us, O Asvins, with those aids.

    yo agniH saptamAnuShaH shrito vishveShu sindhuShu |
    tamAganma tripastyaM mandhAturdasyuhantamamagniM yaj~neShu pUrvyaM nabhantAmanyake same || 8.039.08

    8.039.8 Agni who liveth in all streams, Lord of the Sevenfold Race of men,
    Him dweller in three homes we seek, best slayer of the Dasytis for Mandhatar, first in sacrifice. Let all the others die away.

    5. On shrI rAma (yes, the same rAma of the rAmAyaNa):

    pra tadduHshIme pR^ithavAne vene pra rAme vochamasure maghavatsu |
    ye yuktvAya pa.ncha shatAsmayu pathA vishrAvyeshhAm.h || 10\.093\.14

    10.093.14 This to Duhsima Prthavana have I sung, to Vena, Rama, to the nobles, and the King.
    They yoked five hundred, and their love of us was famed upon their way.

    nIlakaNTha compiled a collection of mantras from the Rig Veda that correspond to the story of rAma. This collection is called the "mantra-rAmAyaNa". Check this link for further details: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/artic...ramayana-1.htm

    6. In addition, Rig veda 10.34 is attributed to king mAndhAtR; 10.179.1 is attributed to king shivi, and 10.179.2 is attributed to king pratardana.

    The Vedic Rishis may be residing in the janaH, tapaH and satya lokas today, but in the days of the hoary past they all lived as human beings in the land of bhArata, the land of Sapta Sindhu (seven rivers) that included sarasvatI and flanked on the sides of east and west by samudra--oceans, which is the geography of the Rig Veda, the oldest extant book of mankind.

    Sources:
    1. 'On the chronological framework of Indian Culture' by subhASh kAk
    http://gaurang.org/indian_phil/india...ubhash-kak.pdf

    2. samudra and sarasvatI in the Rig Veda by N.Kazanas
    http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/SSR.pdf

    3. purANic Encyclopaedia by vettam maNi
    http://www.archive.org/download/pura...00maniuoft.pdf
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •