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.

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.

DM,
Your 'definition' in the last paragraph may describe most hindus. But it is not sufficient as a definition because it does not exclude Non-hindus.
Many westerners would desribe themselves this way without identifying themselves as Hindu.

mohar11:

I take the Abrahmic faiths' definition of religion because the concept itself is Abrahmic, in my opinion. Why must Hindus insist upon theirs being A Religion? I think that it is perhaps more accurate to call it as a convenient term that encompasses a number of faiths.

Having said that, I would add that most of these faiths do have some common threads, the most common being a belief in the concepts of reincarnation and moksha.

The good thing about this amorphous nature of Hinduism is that it lets a thousand flowers bloom; the negative side is that it lacks the discipline of a single faith, so you have people worshipping snakes and temples devoted to rats, not to mention that mushrooming of con-artists masquerading as swamis and "godmen".

khurram#18:

I would call them "hinduised". A true believer in Judaism, Christianity and Islam would believe his religion to be the Absolute Truth. There is a lot of openmindedness these days, especially in the West, with respect to new ideas even in matters metaphysical.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 16

" 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."

You mean you did a head count?? What about the certitude of millions who walk all the way to Tirupati or Vaishno Devi?? You have a poor understanding of their faith my dear!! I think your understanding of contemporary hinduism is very much dhimmized which appears to emphasise 'superiority' of "formless" form of God (as in Sikhism). You must read more of Visistadvaita or even Dwaita paramparas in order to appreciate the issues regarding Nirvikara and Sakara Brahman!!
If possible try to understand and also perform Shodapochar Pujan on some idols of your Ishta Deva/devi!! Perhaps then you would understand that "certitude" does not come from reading books but from "parokshanubhava"!!!

Re: article
Dost,
One of my dad’s friends describes Hinduism as “Your search for your God”. According to him there are the religious books are there to help you along the way. But what you believe in is up to you. Quite like doing a PHD, there is a lot prior work in the field i.e. the religious books. But your thesis has to work for you.

Your thoughts!

Regards,

Faruk

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

allah, philosopher:

You might want to exchange your "pleasantries" on Unplugged. Thanks.

laddu#22:

"You mean you did a head count?? What about the certitude of millions who walk all the way to Tirupati or Vaishno Devi??'

I obviously do not ask people of their religion. But as you know, it is possible to guess our people's faiths, esp. for women, by their dress, etc.

I do know of the multitudes who go to Tirupati and Vaishno Devi (I have been to both these places, the Hindu deities do occupy scenic places at hilltops!). I also know that many of the same people would also go to the dargah of Nizamuddin.

And while I do not have an isht-devta to pray to, I have immense admiration for the philosophies expounded by Hindu sages and I do listen to and enjoy bhajjans and shabad-kirtans.

DM,

I was talking about millions who are not 'true believers' in anything. They are often referred to as 'seculars' , 'humanists', 'free-lance monotheists' or some such term. What has that got to do with hinduism? yet they would fit your definition.

Faruk#23:

I do agree with that way of thinking. This is similar to what J. Krishnamurti used to say.

It is quite rare to find an article on Hinduism written with as much objectivity as possible by a Hindu or an outsider for that matter. I can say that most Hindus' sentiments on their religion/way of life will be echoed by this write up.
On Sankhya Yoga though, I think Bhagvad Puraan and not Bhagvad Gita gives a better description of being thesitic as opposed to athestic. There is some confusion regarding Kapila muni. There were two different ones perhaps. But the Sankhya philosophy mentioned in Bhagvad Puraan is somewhat as follows:
The universe is made up of 25 different qualities. Of these 24 are static and only the 25th i.e. time is dynamic and creates a dynamic and ever changing universe. The 24 qualities include consciousness, matter etc.
I don't remember Gita speaking about Sankhya philosophy in this vein though.
Anybody volunteer to dispell this confusion?

Adios

Re: # 27

DM ji ,

The issue was about "certitude" . I am saying I have certitude about my faith...I say those millions who walk all the way to tirupati and vaishnodevi have "certitude" about their deities.

Yet you prefer to ignore that and talk about dargahs.
Try to understand that dargahs are like "samadhis" of Nath munis and of various Sadhus of different ascetic panths.
Also , these sufis are considered munafiqoons by the traditional muslims- going to dargah does not mean that hindus have a dhimmized reverence for the Allah!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 19 dm
[... Why must Hindus insist upon theirs being A Religion?...]

Well, you are the one who wrote the article making the comparison and hair-splitting distinction!!!... :)

For most hindus religion, faith, dharma - it's the same thing... .it has been there among humans for ages, in one form or the other... the concept of god and religion is NOT abrahamic, it's universal...

You are basically creating a strawman and stumping on it...

Am not qualified to comment much here, but DM ji, laddu raises a rather important point. The resolution of that apparently complex issue is simplicity itself, if as always, we go to the basics of all Indian thought (Hinduism or not, one couldn't care less). And that Indian point has been articulated, amazingly, by Faruk!

Laddu, the anubhava that creates Indian 'cetitude' is a reflection of our own inherent/inner godhood, or to put it in terms of semitic faiths - each person's inalienable right to be his or her own 'Prophet' or son or daughter of "God."

That realization - what Indians have for ages called atma gyam (or even brahma gyan) creates 'certitude,' without reading any books. Books become another, temporary, reflection of certitude of some people at certain time and place.

--------------

khurram, you should see the bitterness with which many 'fundamentalist' christians/scholars accuse these 'liberals' or 'new agers' of being Hindus and pagans. Of course, the liberals or new agers don't accept that, and that is perfectly ok for "Hindus" for whom labels tend to be meaningless (which is a big problem in political terms)....
---------------

laddu, tragically, Islamic sufis and Hindus go to dargahs for totally different reasons. For that reason alone, Hindus should totally stop patronizing any of these places. That must be a political move, not a religious one.
-------------------

Anyways, would rather read and learn from others here. Thanks for the opportunity, DM ji.

Re: # 27

"...the Hindu deities do occupy scenic places at hilltops!.."

See you try to mock my sacred places...yes indeed divinity descends on the hill tops .....you actually have only a bookish understanding of hindu way of life............

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

lol, mohar, I refer to semitic religions and the rest of our deligions, so we can differentiate between things that only look the same but are not the same at all.

Just as we don't have religion, semiticists don't have dharma (although sufis might desecend upon us again to protest). What's more, it's hard for each side to see the possiblity or the wisdom of the other, without being accused of 'selling out' and destroying the 'essence.'

Re: # 34

"Laddu, the anubhava that creates Indian 'cetitude' is a reflection of our own inherent/inner godhood, or to put it in terms of semitic faiths - each person's inalienable right to be his or her own 'Prophet' or son or daughter of "God."

That realization - what Indians have for ages called atma gyam (or even brahma gyan) creates 'certitude,' without reading any books. Books become another, temporary, reflection of certitude of some people at certain time and place."

well said.!!!

dost,

....can you recommend a book on hindooism - something like "hindooism for idiots" which can explain my grandpa's faith to me ..........

....... unlike islam which is a simple religion for simpletons, hindooism seems to be a complex religion for thinking folks (arjun being the exception) ...... at first reading it is obvious that islam and other abrahamic faiths were thought up by uneducated and ignorant sheep-herders, wheras hindooism is the product of brainy intellectuals over many centuries ...... maybe that is why christianity and islam appeals to stupid people - you accept jesus christ as the son of god and you get a ticket to heaven; you kill an infidel and you get to cavort with seventy virgins in heaven ......... simple and easy to understand ! ....... who has the time to figure out the process of reincarnation and all that other 'heavy' stuff .........

........why can't i become a hindoo by simply saying, " there is no god but ishwar and ram is his prophet" ?

Re: # 25 and #24

why are you being so cruel to yourself? self-immolation is a crime slyder, and worse is a sin far greater than coveting someone else arse....

Anyway enjoy what allah said he would give you in #36

"laddu, tragically, Islamic sufis and Hindus go to dargahs for totally different reasons. For that reason alone, Hindus should totally stop patronizing any of these places. That must be a political move, not a religious one."

why should hindus stop going to dargahs? sufis are considered to be outside traditional Islam indulging in kufr and bidda. We consider sufis to be part of the sadhu parampara

Re: # 39

"appeals to stupid people"

Are you saying pitamah Gopinath was stupid?
Is that why you guys deny your hinju past
and go all the way to Bagdad or Basara
or somewhere there?

laddu bhai, unfortunately, that is a suicidal path for Hinduism, but for reaching that conclusion we need to figure out what sufism exactly is. If that is ok with you, let's leave that for another time.

For now, all I would submit is, sufims is NOT hinduism, it has nothing to do with Hinduism. It is not Islam either, not by a long shot, but merely one of the many tools towards the larger unit/unity of Islam.

That is perfectly fine and respectable, but it is just different. Probably that is not convincing enough, for which, I apologize.

Re: # 37kaal

dude - it's the same thing - religion, dharma, faith... you and DM - you guys just raising strawmen out of nowhere and then stomping on it and creating a big hoopla about nothing...

I am not sure what's the reason for this hair-spliting excercise, this urge to define and re-define ancient concepts... you guys have studied abrahmic faiths and may be got too "close" to it... you guys are getting too narrow and one-dimensional in your thinking... :)

Vishnu has a thousand names and 10 different manifestations, but He is One... religion, faith, dharma - it may be a dozen different words, it's the same thing...

Come on - do i really have to teach you the basics?

LOL, you may be right, after all, mohar bhai. Still, for the sake of peace and preservation of life, I would advise my Hindu friends to not want to intall a statue of Vishnu in any mosque anytime soon, even if it is a mosque headed by Indian "sufis". :)

Re: # 43

Eklavya Bhai Saheb,

Sufism's summum bonnum is "Fanaa" which is like ascetic goal of "Samadhi" - so it is very much part of hindu ascetic orders!!!

Re: # 45

Eklaya ji,

I think you got it all wrong..........you would probably NOT find a sufi heading a mosque!!
And there is already a Vishnu in Mashhad Masjid in Iran.

Eklayva,
All pagans are not hindus. Hindus have a connection to a body of Indian thought - no matter how vaguely defined. This is missing from DM's definition in the last paragraph.

Mohar, there is definitely a "oneness" best articulated by my friend thinkingstorm, who is a good Muslim/Hindu/human being.

Since it can be argued that everything - Hindus, Muslims, man, dog, pig, fish, mountains, galaxy, and anti-matter- came from some one source, they are all basically the same, and we need not worry about separating them.

This kind of "oneness" comes naturally to Hindus since it is part and parcel of our core beliefs. Still, let's not rush to installing statues in mosques so soon.

------------

laddu bhai, ok. Perhaps we will have occasion to pursue an understanding of sufism sometime.

------------

khurram, yes, I was actually astonished to see the same point of view expressed by cobra, our rss friend. The focus there is exclusively on geographical identity, not on any principles or ways of thinking. So, for instance, cobra does not consider Bali Hindus Hindu at all (Bali Hinduism has no overwhelming connection now to India. It makes all local references.)

I am not sure if I fully comprehend that view.

khurram, the only connection I see to India is that this view, or rather approach to understanding the reality around us, has been best and most consistently been developed in India, and by its own inner logic, has no inherent drive to convince others (mostly non-Indians) of its 'truth.' It just doesn't approach 'truth' in those terms.

There was a gentleman on chowk sometime back who wrote beautifully on that important point. He described in detail why a semitic religion 'had to' spread out because its own inner nature.

Indian thought lacks that drive. So we can call the former 'universal' truths and Indian thought 'Indian.' But I suspect that is not quite right.

interesting write up dost-mittar sahib----enjoyed it. thanks.
it is a pity that many hindus nowadays don't understand hinduism as you do in your concluding paragraph...
where does the whole caste system come into it? How is Manu related to Hinduism? These are serious qs.

Re: # 51

Hi wolfy,

How is your sunnat?

"Indian thought lacks that drive. So we can call the former 'universal' truths and Indian thought 'Indian.' But I suspect that is not quite right."

eklavya, it right right that you are not right. But you know that. I urge you to try to understand concepts like "universal" and "truths" etc.. before using them. Idnian views vs. outsiders views has the same universality as outsiders view and indian view. spreading doesn't make it either truth or universal.

An excellent summation of a complex and fascinating belief system.


Thanks dost-mittar.

"Hingboos have been civilized to some extent by the Mughal and British rules. The missionaries are doing a good job now."

HAHAHA. Mughal = Civilized? A political system where brothers killed brothers, fathers killed sons and vice versa, people were bricked alive? Mughal Rule belongs, along with Nazism, in the dustbin of history.

hamidm2

hindooism seems to be a complex religion for thinking folks (arjun being the exception)

being the equal opportunity religion trasher that you are :), if memory serves me correctly, arjun does not claim to be either hindu or christian - being a product of both. So he cannot be the exception.

furthermore bhai saheb, whatever heaven or hell is, merely accepting jesus christ as the son of god and personal savior does not get you a ticket to heaven. I know dubya hopes it will. :)

Re: # 49 kaal
[...let's not rush to installing statues in mosques so soon.
...]

Once again - another strawman argument...

Hinduism does not need statues at all... God is Omnipresent... you don't need statues in temples or mosques... Some people want to have idols which is fine too...

There is no need to have statues in mosque

Kaal, you want the truth? You can't handle the truth..


Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns and intellect and capital(NOT scripture). Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Mohar? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Muslims and hinjews and you curse the Secularoon. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That religions's death, while tragic, will probably save lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at mosques and temples, you want me on that wall. You need me there. We use words like honor, code, loyalty, universality and TRUTH...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline . I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.



:) sorry kaal...couldn't resist when you go a bit overboard with your muddled thoughts.

mohar, if I understand you right, you are willing to accept Islam as a sect of Hinduism. Or, you have something else in mind?


--------

no probs, chalta. These are interesting issues :)

The author writes "So, Who is a Hindu?

I will conclude by giving my own definition of a Hindu: In my understanding, a Hindu is someone who may believe in one or more gods or goddesses or not believe in any god at all, but he does not claim to have a monopoly over the Absolute Truth and is willing to give the same respect to the validity of others’ beliefs as to his own. In other words, Hinduism lacks the certitude of the three Abrahmic faiths, namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and, maybe, also of Sikhism."

Come on man, this is not how it works. A religion does not have to define itself as a "religion" to be a "religion" first and foremost and what you recognize as non-religion has sociological characteristics that classify it as a religion for example the sacred and the profane, rituals, and a common group solidarity enhancing symbols and definitions and so on. The problem with your misunderstanding is that you are taking things written over a vast period of time and mixing them together to come up with your definition of Hinduism- i.e. anything and everything goes as long as I can make money and proclaim an IT miracle- that is however not the case except for a small percent of morons that form a large percent of the Hindu chowk population....Were you to combing Judaism, Christianity and Islam into one and do a similar read, you would conclude with the same definition, more or less, of what you come up with regarding Hindusim but that is certainly not true about any of them; truth is not as variable as you might like it to be, neither is an easy attitutde about it any sign of maturity or open mindedness, and finally RELIGION is not a bad word....

Amartya Sen California Magazine; July-August2006 University of California at Berkeley : "In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than exists in any other classical language. Even within the Hindu tradition, there are many people who were atheist. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" - a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism."

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In #60 read "Were you to combing Judaism, Christianity and Islam into one " as
"Were you to combine Judaism, Christianity and Islam into one

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dost Mittar Sahib,

Great article!

You are to be commended!

As a scholar of Religious Studies, you have presented a very scholarly article on Hinduism and explained its belief system and history very well.

The points contained within your essay are shared by the foremost scholars of religion in the world.

Thank you

I was born a Muslim. I consider myself to be both a Muslim and a Hindu. My Hinduism professor Gail Sutherland told me once that she perceived me to be more of a Hindu than a Muslim. I think she was right.

I am not an arab or an Iranian.

I am first and foremost a person of Indian cultural ethnicity.

That very fact makes me a Hindu for I am too a person who was born on the east side of the River Sindhu, in the land of Sapt-Sindhu!

I really do not know why all of the interactors are so bent upon abusing each other's religon.....
I am not religous but at the same time I do feel that religous fervour is only intensified when one's religon is abused....
No matter how much we like to disown....
Religon is one of the things which does form our identity....
Even Einstien despite being an Athiest started calling himself a jew when jews were being abused.....
Religon always has a reactionary element...
You abuse someone's religon or even give "logical" criticism...
It will always intensify the fervor....

thomas jefferson said :

“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear…

Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitement to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, [then] a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement…

I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject any thing because any other person, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven…”


...... now, if you want to believe in flying monkeys rescuing damsels in distress, winged creatures talking to men in dark caves, men in sandals walking on water and other such nonsense, it is your business ...... just make sure you slap the fool when you look in the mirror ......

agreed 100% Hamidm. I don't know one hinjew that has seen an elephant riding a rat...or a musala..who has seen a winged horse go to heaven...but I have heard of hinjews marrying their kids off to a tree or a dog...and musalas banging 6 yr old kids.

#67 Posted by ShoreSahib
“That very fact makes me a Hindu for I am too a person who was born on the east side of the River Sindhu, in the land of Sapt-Sindhu!”

You can shout to your heart’s content but you will still not be a hindu until you accept Hindu faith on the hands of Pundit Laddu Maharaj bombai wala.

Since I have completed the ritual and am accepted by the Pundit, I am really a hindu now! This is a unique honor that Pundit Laddu Maharaj bestowed on me and not on you!

You will remain a fake Hindu no matter what your Christian Professor said to you.
Only Pundit Laddu Maharaj can declare you a hindu.

Anyway, going by your features alone, you are hindu!

Hamidm,

I invite you to join the Hindu faith and take advantage of the Pundit Laddu maharaj's presence on this board!

Any one who dares to define what Hinduism is, will be in trouble. He has to get his head examined first.

Kamath

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#73
I am willing to do everything for the good of Hindu religion. I wanna make it a paak saaf religion unlike what it is now.
Btw,
Pundit Laddu Maharaj promised me Brahaminhood and I know a great Hindu leader and a Pundit like him won't lie!

HP

Its too late. Save ourself, join the Church of Scientology.
Tom Cruise is the next messiah.

Yeah Laddu may have promised Brahminhood because getting a "achoot" certificate is not that easy.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Eklavya,

A person who sees a hate-monger as a messenger of peace is having problems with what others are seeing? Hello.

Eklavya:

I inadvertently flagged your post. Didn't mean to.

Eklavya,

It is like a Pakistani pointing to Christian attacks in india.
Yes there are attacks on Missionaries because right-wing doesn't like their conversion activities. But what fate the Christian Missionaries will face if they open up their shop in Pakistan?
Will they be allowed to preach the message of Christ and allow peaceful conversion of poor Muslims to Christianity for a loaf of bread?

allah ji, there may be something to that, but we can't be much enthused/worried about what ali_1 bhai believes, particularly in this context. He made a reasonable point. I take that on face value and leave the rest.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

hp,

...... i would like to retract my offer to revert to grandpa's gopinath's religion ...... based on the interactions by bonafide hinoos on this board i have come to the conclusion that hindooism is not all that dost-mittar would have us believe ....... like tahmed he seems to be a spin-meister :) ...... i think i will look into kabala judaism ...... alas, my search continues .......

hamdim, now that you mentioned tahmed ji, I would raise a question that always came to mind.

Tahmedji is a true gentleman, knowledgeable, and a real universalist. But I have never met another person (Muslim or non-Muslim) who shares(shared) his understanding/interpretation of Islam and/or the Quran. Yet his enthusiasm for his understanding/interpretation has neither dimmed nor wavered in years.

Is that a true miracle of faith, or are there lots of others who actually do share his views (such as the Quran being the Arabic Quran and others), and one just doesn't see them around much?

(tahmed ji, please ignore this. It is not meant to offend you. If anything, I am very impressed that one person could have such courage of convictions and the strength of character needed to maintain that.)

Hamidm,
Your salvation was so near...you missed it!

I will check back with you in 15 days. I am headed to Karachi on Sunday to ensure free and fair elections and power transfer to the true reps(awami Numainday)...you and me!

Re: # 86

eklavya,

tahmed is an apspiring prophet of islam like mirza ghulam ahmed and akbar before him ...... let's hope he does better than those two ...... i am ready to follow him

of course it's not a religion..it's a cult...like all religions are


cult: small unpopular religion(see mormonism)
religion: large popular cult(see hinduism, islam, catholicism)

Very decent presentation on such a complex religion.

It's impossible to encapsulate all aspects of Hinduism as ther'd be something unsaid abt it even after writing a longest article.

I think it's Lokayata (...such as Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayukta). English translation of Sanskrit names is needed for Pakistanis (not to Shorey), I guess.

Never mind. I am happy that this article is is appreciated by Pakistanis.

Re: # 57

"Hinduism does not need statues at all... God is Omnipresent... you don't need statues in temples or mosques... Some people want to have idols which is fine too..."

Mohar Bhai,

We survived despite demolition of thousands of our temples. We survived depite all those lootings, beheadings and rapes. We survived despite taking our family members, women and little children as slaves back to Arabic lands. We survived because the resilience the spirituality of our faith in our literature, music and language. It would even survive the modern times by merging and adapting with modern cultural practices of Yoga Studios and Art of living. They broke our temples and idols , but they could never destroy our spiritual heritage!!!

Re: # 75

Sindhu sharma ji,

During partition there were a number of reversions back to hinduism - many of them adapted Brahminhood - and there were hardly any issues. Any one is free to take a Brahmin name- you do not require a certificate from me or any one else.

Before Amartya sen wrote about this, I'm sure no on knew about Charvaka or his atheistic philosophy. And now there are attempts to Hinduise atheism.

It is a safe guess to assume that people 2000 years back had the same doubt and beliefs the people have now.

There are religious nutcases / atheists / agnostics / prophet lovers etc.. even then and even now.

it is better not to define Hinduism as a religion or any such dogma lest that people start killing the blasphemers. :-)

slyder#24:

"Hingboos are the last remaining major pagan"

The question you should ask is, why? India is not an obscure corner of the world which was undiscovered by people of so-called enlightened religions. There was no dearth of zealot Muslim rulers or equally zealot Christian missionaries who tried to redeem these souls from their "jahaliat". Even today, there are television channels beaming messages from Christian missionaries and Maulanas on Indian Television, alongwith several others beaming Hindu and Sikh preachings. Why was this pagan religion able to withstand the onslaught of these two prosleytising religions, which overwhelmed other pagan and even non-pagan religions?

One reason, of course, is that all of us are brainwashed into our belief systems before we are able to think for ourselves. Another is that there are substantial psychic and social costs of leaving one's family and community which are tied to one's religious faith. But that reason would have applied equally to other pagan religions which were overwhelmed by proselytising religions.

I think that the answer lies in the bewildering complexity and variety of this belief system. Whatever these other religions brought, the natives could find the seeds of it in the smorgsbord of their own scriptures and sacred books.

To the extent conversions took place, they were for reasons other than the theological attractions of the newer religions. Some coverted to curry favour with the religion of the new rulers and hoped to gain from joining the ruling class by doing so; others joined because the message of the sufis which was tailored to the needs of the locals to such an extent that to some it became indistinguishable from their own bhakti cults and they did not think that they were embracing a new faith; yet others converted to escape the opression faced by them by the religiously sanctioned rigid social hierarchy from which they did not see escape either for themselves or their progeny without moving out of that social order altogether. But others who were not at the bottom of the social order did not and do not find any attraction in other religions and stayed put.

khurram#28:

"I was talking about millions who are not 'true believers' in anything. They are often referred to as 'seculars' , 'humanists', 'free-lance monotheists' or some such term. What has that got to do with hinduism? yet they would fit your definition."

That's a valid observation. My answer is that a Hindu does not need any such label, it is built into the system (not necessarily 'humanist'). It has often been said by Hindu nationalists and even the Christian Sonia Gandhi that India is secular because it is Hindu. Another cliche often used is the sanskrit expression "sarva dharma sambhav" roughly meaning that all religions are the same.

dost Mittar Saheb did a great service of explaining Hinduism. This is to supplement what he rightly pointed out - lack of information on Indian atheistic philosophies: Charvak or Lokayat. Reasons are twofold.
1. As freethinking individuals, they could not come together as a school. They also did not attack/hate others belief systems as they considered it part of individual liberty. As always attacks and battles are remembered and not logical explanantions.
2. Whatever information we have on atheistic current are from their objectors – pundits of cults, who made a living as Kings or Priests. They tried to destroy all philosophical treatises and generate such a psychosis that nobody dares calling himself an atheist. This is true to this day.

However some of what atheists said has survived as an example of ‘Don’t do’s’ in theistic literature. Only one text seems to have come down as authentic writing by Charvaks themselves. Tatvopaplavasimha questions severely all theistic schools of Indian thought. Please sample
“If a beast slain in the Jyothishtoma rite will itself go to heaven, Why then does not the sacrificer (yajamana) forthwith offers his own father?”

A treatise on all schools of thought- Sarvadarsanasamgraha also elaborates Charvak thoughts as reference. However the best manifestations are allegoric in nature in dramas of several authors. One example is Prabodha-candrodaya – Knowledge of Rising moon.

Charvaks propounded that theistic thought and concept of God became Maïa (illusion or Saitan) themselves. They misled in investigation of truth by creating ‘faith’ diversions.

Dost Mittar,

Who are we kidding? The only reason Islam didnt spread all over India is because Punjabi muslims (and Sindhi Muslims) didnt have the missionary zeal to spread the religion eastwards. Typically Islam was spread by each newly converted group taking the message to their neighbors and the chain continuing forward e.g. Arabs to Persians, Persians and Arabs to Turks, Turks to Afghans and East Europeans, Afghans to Punjabis etc. This is understandable because people dont usually care about people who are far removed geographically.

Somehow this daisy chain halted at Punjabis and Sindhis. The latter converted in large numbers but didnt bother to spread it further. In fact, I dont beleive there is even one instance of a Punjabi or Sindhi mullah going to the rest of India to convert people. Whatever conversions happened in rest of North India were done by Turk and Mughals, and they were interested in power rather than conversions. I dont know why Punjabis and Sindhi muslims didnt have the missionary zeal. Maybe they were reluctant converts at first? In any case, it is only after 1947 that some of them have caught the jihadi bug, especially in Punjab. However, for 1000 years, they didnt care which is why Islam never spread in the rest of India.

Maharana#30

Thanks for your kind words and pointing out the difference between Bhagwat Gita and Puran. I am not a scholar of Hinduism and cannot answer your question. Hopefully, someone else can.

laddu#31,35:

You are not alone; many Hindus do have the certitude that you have; I was talking here about the belief system. Are there any bounds that a Hindu cannot cross without crossing the boundaries of his or her faith?

As regards scenic hillspots of temples, I was in fact admiring the aesthetics of Hindus and did not mean to mock the religion

mohar11#33:

If I am creating a strawman, could you please tell us if there is a Hindi/Sanskrit equivalent of Mazhab?

#93masanamuthu NO. Earliest known reference of atheistic current goes back to 9th century BC by Vrahaspati. The period of 4th BC till 6th AD saw birth of most of the major currents of philosophies in India.

Some great nastik (kind of atheistic) philosophers such as Kumar Giri left a very strong impact. As you rightly said in your last sentence, such people were always attacked by those who may lose their living. There were many attempts on Kumar Giri’s life. When he walked away after being thrown from a cliff, his detractors attributed it to divine protection and qualities in him. While he himself steadfastly ridiculed such crdulous attempts.

eklavya#34:

As I said to laddu, I am trying to differentiate between the certitude of an individual and the certitude that comes from the faith-system. Maybe this is a wrong distinction but that's what I have in mind.

eklavya#34:

As I said to laddu, I am trying to differentiate between the certitude of an individual and the certitude that comes from the faith-system. Maybe this is a wrong distinction but that's what I have in mind.

hamidm#39:

I googled under 'hinduism for dummies' and got several entries, including this one from amazon.com entitled "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism' by Linda Johnson. Here is the editorial comment from Amazon.com:
"Hinduism is such a vast, complex, and exotic topic that to boil it down to a few hundred pages--and make it fun--must be the work of a true avatar, in this case Linda Johnsen. In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism, Johnsen covers the history, philosophy, devotions, gods, and traditions of this timeless religion. She takes pains to not only make the material easy to read and understand but to get inside the minds of Hindus, themselves, to make sense of what they believe and why. This sympathetic view is balanced by objective and concrete reporting. For example, she presents discussions of the Aryan Invasion theory, whether Jesus visited India, and a well-documented case of modern-day reincarnation. In addition to introducing each of the different strains of Hinduism and their beliefs, she also gives an overview of the classic Hindu myths. Exotic, yes, but Johnsen succeeds in bringing Hinduism closer to home. --Brian Bruya "

I would avoid heavy books by Hindu writers, such as Radha Krishnan, which are standard university texts. In my opinion, Hindu reformists, starting with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were awed by the monotheism of Christianity and tried to search for the same in their religion and ignored other streams of thoughts/practices in their belief system.

Naqshbandi#51:
"where does the whole caste system come into it? How is Manu related to Hinduism? These are serious qs."

Thanks for your kind remarks.

I did touch upon the possible sources of caste system in my write-up. Do you have a specific question? As regards Manu, he is supposed to be the author of a dharmashastra, a treatise which describes the laws applicable to a particular time. Manu's smriti is supposed to be for Sat Yuga and not for the current period, which the Hindus call Kal Yuga, which is supposed to have started with the end of the Mahabharata phase.

Mantolives#54:

Thanks for your appreciation.

masadi#61,62:
"The problem with your misunderstanding is that you are taking things written over a vast period of time and mixing them together to come up with your definition of Hinduism"

You are right but isn't what Hinduism is all about? a mix of philosophies, rituals, societal organization, etc. that developed on the subcontinent?

On your other point, there is no review window after you submit an article, so I could not be certain whether the error was mine or that of the chowk staff; so I considered it was proper for me to apologize for the error.

masadi#61,62:
"The problem with your misunderstanding is that you are taking things written over a vast period of time and mixing them together to come up with your definition of Hinduism"

You are right but isn't what Hinduism is all about? a mix of philosophies, rituals, societal organization, etc. that developed on the subcontinent?

On your other point, there is no review window after you submit an article, so I could not be certain whether the error was mine or that of the chowk staff; so I considered it was proper for me to apologize for the error.

Regard#s various:

You seem to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Please keep posting. I am all ears!

Shoresaheb#67:

Thank you for your comments. You are what the RSS people would call a Mohammedan Hindu. It seems from chowk that there are more of them than one would have thought.