What is Hinduism? A Personal View

In Karachi I used to go to a friend's house after school and they sometime used to have some thing called punchmeri daal(Close to what I remember). They would mix five types of daal and serve that as food.

I guess by DM's description Hindu religion is like puchmeri daal. You mix every daal you find in the kitchen and call it food!

I remember sometimes ago I posted that hinduism is no religion at all and it is mishmash of different faiths and believes that came together after Muslims invaded India.The whole sangh parivar on this site descended to abuse me.

Now I see that the guru of the sangh parivar himself agrees that Hinduism is no religion.

I am sure some 2000 years ago, north Indians barely knew some people existed in South India. So the religion of both south and the North India could not possibly be one at that time!

Dost,

I recall that vivekananda has defined a hindu.

He has to believe in god, and also believe that the vedas are given by god.

Then there is the legal interpretation, as per the high court of kerala in the jesudas Vs NSS case ( circa 1972).

A statement " I believe in hinduism also" was found adequate in the context of entry into hindu temples, to recognise the person as a hindu.

Dear Friend (dost-mittar),

"... is willing to give the same respect to the validity of others’ beliefs as to his own."

"... Hinduism lacks the certitude of the three Abrahmic faiths, namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and, maybe, also of Sikhism."

Interesting thesis there DM.

Laddu, NKG and anti-Islam others; why are you silent NOW?

Sat Siri Akaal.

Dear Reader:

I apologise for the inadvertant capitalization of the last part of the article.

dost-mittar,

........ damn! ... why didn't you tell me all this before ! ....... i guess, by your definition, i am a hindoo too! .

what the heck was grandpa gopinath thinking when he left such a benign and wonderful non-religion to join the ranks of fanatical true believers who have caused so much pain and suffering on earth ? ....... maybe, this sunday, i will go to the local hindoo temple and light a candle for his tormented soul ..... and as long as i can eat meat and don't have to wear that silly dot on my forehead, i am okay with being a hindoo ......... maybe i will change my name to gopinath ......

hp,

........ this sounds like something you too should look into ... it is time people like you and i went back to our roots - to be honest, i am getting tired of being a cultural muslim ....... hindooism sounds like a lot more fun with all those women in skimpy saris running around in the rain throwing paint at each other .....eid is just a day when you feel bloated and suffer from heartburn ........

Re: # 3

I just saw this article- and my quick reaction to it-

1.Hindu thought, in contradistinction to the Abrahmic thought, share similar metaphysical notions about Atman, The world as a Samsara, Concept of individual Karma and the notion of liberation.

2. Hinduism is NOT like Abrahmic "religion" requiring persons called the 'prophet' as the radio receiver to some 'formless' God's communication. Every person is capable of communicating with the divine and become the "seer". There is no rationing on the number of "seers" in the life span of the world - and hence no finality on a "Prophet".

3. The notion of "Self" -
Darshanas are not merely theoretical and metaphysical books but have a practical component and share an very important common thread of 'Sadhanas' that aim at segregation of the soul from the non-soul (Vedanta), the Sadhanas for separation of the Purusha from the Prakriti (as in Samkhya) or the meditation on difference between the 'Anus' (Atom) , the matter (Nyaya-Vasiheshikha)and the soul . These finer points are not understood just by reading Radhakrishnan's "Introduction to Indian Philosophy" but by interacting with those who turned these darshanas into Sadhanas. The crux of all these Sadhanas is the understanding of the true nature of the "Atman" or the self and it's relation to the material world.

4. The notion of "Ishwara"-
"God", to the extent it is the first cause of the world (and not as the wrathful Abrahmic deity) is the "Ishwara" and has an important place in Yoga-Samkhya, Vaisheshika and even Vedanta. He can bestow knowledge of Atman and hence be the cause of mukti from the samsara.

5. Karma versus destiny- Man as a karmic being can gain any position (including that of an 'AApta' or a Prophet ) in the 'mrtyu loka' or even the highest state of 'Indra' (the lord of Gods) by doing penance and Sadhana.
Any person on the 'mrtyu-loka' can also become a "Prajapati" through karmas.

6. Hierarchy of Lokas (world)and transmigration -
There is a hierarchy of 'Lokas'. The souls move from the world of Devas to the 'Mrtyu -loka' to 'Naraka' as per the karmas.


DM talks about "certitude" and ignores the certitude of idolator like me who considers that the formless can only be attained through the worship of idols depicting the positive qualities of the Sakaara Brahman.
.
Let me read on!!

"One of the great proponents of the Sankhya school was Charvak, a contemporary/adversary of Buddha. "

Correction - Charvakas were materialists and not proponents of Samkhya school which believed in dualism of Purusha and Prakriti.
Charvakas only believed in Prakriti .

DM
[...it’s not a Religion in the sense most people think of religions, yet, one cannot say that it is not a religion...]

well - let's frame this "in the sense most people view religion":

1. there should be one god. checked - Ishwar is one and only and formless, omnipresent etc etc.
2. there should be prophets. checked - we got avatars - krishna, ram, a number of them.
3. there should be scriptures. checked - gita,vedas etc...

Important thing here is that it's doesn't stop there... it goes beyond that narrow definition [who defined that anyway?] of religion... it's a superset of that narrow definition of religion as understood by "most people", read people of abrahmic "faiths"...

It has transcended the narrowness: one god,one book,one prophet confinement... it seeks to take people beyond that, it has expanded the horizon... which is why it confounds "most people", because it's rich in diversity, rich philosophies, rich in ideas that "most people" have not come to understand it yet...

it's an insult to the faith to try to cast this into abrahmic definitions, to dumb it down to that level... there is no blasphemy in hinduism, but this comes closest to it...

Hinduism is ahead of the time...

HP#1


If religion is food, to use your terminology, then a Hindu would say that each daal is a food and so you can eat whatever daal or daals you like. If you like to worship Shiva alone, if you think that Sai Baba is a bhagwan, that's your choice and if you want to worship both of them, that is your choice, too.

As regards the reaction of other hindus, let's see if I am greeted with the same kind of reaction that you got. In essence I agree with you sans your ridicule.

Re: # 6 hamid muttar


''this sounds like something you too should look into ... it is time people like you and i went back to our roots''

The roots where there is ''gao-muttar and and goaber khaad(fertilizer)'' that help your roots grow to the new spirtual and intellectual heights. ''aa ab loat chalain''.
hamdid...along with that you will have to aviod messing up devta toilet bowl ji with non vegetarian filth as well.

Muttar knows better

jayp#2:

My concept is similar to that of the Kerala high court. Several hindus on chowk have declared themselves to be agnostic or atheists. Are they non-hindus, as Vivekanand's definition would suggest?

hamidm2#5:

Don't knock grandpa gopinath. You owe your good looks to his decision. And but for him, you would still be eating the heeng-laced daal.

DM

One god,one book, one prophet - while this is good for simple folks - it's actually a step behind in human evolution... evolution of the thought process... it's tribalistic and primitive... those who take these "religions" too seriously end up being primitive... I mean look at the bedouins...

You are looking at an ocean here... and you are wondering why it's not pond... well, why bother about the little ponds, little poodles of stagnant water where nothing gets in or gets out? which is guarded by zealous primitives who call it their "religion"...

While your attempt to get a "personal view" is commendable - you are viewing it from a wrong side of the prism... turn around and look it from the other side - then you will see all the colors... Religion is what hinduism is - one-book faiths are mere sects... they have yet to grow into a real religion...

Re: # 10 DM

HP has no clue... the five-dal is rich in nutrients from five different sources... he may not like the taste, but that's the point... the primitives don't understand the rich diversity...

laddu#7,8:

"DM talks about "certitude" and ignores the certitude of idolator like me who considers that the formless can only be attained through the worship of idols depicting the positive qualities of the Sakaara Brahman."

I do not think that your certitude is shared by your coreligionists. Go to any dargah in India on a Thursday and you would find that the majority of those praying at those dargahs are not Muslims but Hindus.

Thank for your other comments. Re. Charvak, I agree that he is materialistic and I included him among Sankhya people because he is non-theistic. Charvak fascinates me but I could find very little on him on the Internet.