Hinduism‘s most remarkable characteristic is that unlike other theistic religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, it is beyond narrow definitions. It is the oldest extant religion in the world, but is it really a religion? Or a religious tradition? Or just a way of life? It doesn’t have one god you have to pray to, one book you must read, one temple you must visit, one set of beliefs or commandments you should follow.
It is what you make of it and you define it at your own peril.
This is at once charming and infuriating. Charming to those who respect the multifarious nature of the human being, the vishwa manava, because it offers a startlingly simple rationale for a Hindu’s subliminal liberalism. But it is infuriating to those who cannot round up the devout at the crack of a whip like other religious followers, because they accept and assimilate “the other” all too easily.
Now, Britain’s first state-funded Hindu school has come up with a five-step definition of a “practising Hindu. And by that definition a Hindu is one who prays daily at home or at a temple, and observes the key festivals like Deepavali, Krishna Janmashtami and Rama Navami; one who accepts and follows Vedic scriptures, in particular the Bhagavad Gita; one who does voluntary work once a week at temples; one who follows a vegetarian diet, abstaining even from fish and eggs; and one who abstains from intoxication of smoking, drinking or drugs.
Questions: Is it right to define Hinduism thus? Is this definition reasonable or self-serving? Inclusive or exclusionary? Brahminical or all-encompassing? Will such definitions divide or unite Hindus? And by this yardstick what proportion of the 80 per cent Hindu population in the country would qualify as practising Hindus? Would you?
That’s not a Hindu school but an ISKCON school. What else could you expect from them? What they are doing is showing the facet of Hinduism they practice. And they want people that subscribe to their faith. Their practices are a subset of Hinduism but not all of it.
And btw, in the US, I’ve heard ISKCONites say they were not Hindus also. Why, even the Ramakrishna mission’s plea that it was not a Hindu institution was struck down by the supreme court.
Hinduism seems to defy all definitions.
I was born a chaste Hindu, but have been agnostic for a while now. That notwithstanding, I always loved the fact that I did not have to conform to the whims-dikats of the clergy.
Before we can slot the followers of Hinduism, we should try and define Hinduism. It is a diverse tapestry of thoughts, tenets and beliefs with “some” common denominator among the sub denominations. As an example, the Madhvas and Smarthas disagree on a boat load of issues. That’s just two of the many sub-sects of the Brahminical caste in Hinduism.
It is the same over and over again with any caste and it’s sub sects. Given that, how do you define a practicing Hindu ? But on the brighter side, the religion has been tolerant to allow these myriad of flavors to develop ? or maybe there we so many flaws that people would not stop re-inventing !
Then you have the pseudo Hindus, the Madonna types who land in Varnasi, take a dip in the Ganga and proclaim their Hinduism :)
And you have 122 Hindus in the world
The beauty of Hinduism lies in it’s openness. It is open to the myriads of ideas,beliefs,principles that have over time given rise to the many sub sects that we have come to recognize. It transcends beyond being just a religion or a belief system to a philosophy . One that models and mirrors life as a Hindu would live it. The lack of an authoritarian clergy and draconian god men is something that Hinduism is characterized by.
I think religion influences and shapes our mindsets and values to a considerable extent.It won’t be an exaggeration to say that it forms the framework for our philosophy in life. Although rationalists would argue to the contrary I find it difficult to cope with the idea that our value systems and our principles are purely a conception of the intellect and real life experience. For i think one needs to have a holistic perspective on life to able to fully integrate morals and principles with day to day experiences.
I think this is where religion bridges the gap and connects the dots.
Right from the days of the Ramsethu and the Vedas I think thatz where Hinduism has been exemplary.
First and foremost, Hindus follow a way of life that defies any definition by the western standards, reason being the word ‘dharma’ has been wrongly understood by the translators of it into western languages. On the other hand, the word ‘religion’ as we know it has no equivalent in Indian languages. So, attaching an –ism to Hindu way of life is shabby to say the least. Rather, like society is what we call a group of symbiotically aligned people or civilization is what we call a structured and law abiding group of societies, so on so forth, the way of life Hindus follow should be called anything other than an –ism.
Another point to differ from the western definition of things is to consider the pantheon as the reference, rather if one looks closely at the philosophy of Hindus one would understand that gods in the pantheon are just forms of the one almighty, which is very well said in Sanskrit – EkaM sat viprA bahudA vadaMti.
In a nutshell, there are some basic tenets that need to be practiced to call oneself a Hindu, salient among them is not how many times one prays rather how many good deeds one has done in a day. Not how many scriptures he has read but how many humane traits he has.
My family & for generations are non-vegetarians. If we are not Hindus, then Thank you.
It is sure a Brahmin defination of Hindu, which make only “top of the line” Brahmins as Hindus.
Dont think its Brahmin definition..but is for sure some idiot’s..by this stupid yardstick and i am not anywhere closer to H of Hindu. But , what the hell i am a hindu !
does any one know Savarkar’s definition of a Hindu.. I guess he defined it in a sanskrit verse…
Can some one quote the verse and its translation…
Many regard theis definition as being the most comprehensive….
Shiv Shiva, no Lobos, no Hinkal and no Palahalli? What next, Shariaa law?
This definition seems like one of those regimens laid out in the ‘death cults’. For me Charvaka and Shankara are both Hindu. Thats how wide the definition used to be, more used as a geographic indicator than denoting a religion as per western definition..
On a different note, Im sure that Hinduism will accept their prescriptions as the ‘isckon school of hinduism’ just like nyaya vaisheshika or bhakti schools…
The term Hindu is a “foreign word” used to describe people who lived beyond the Indus and south of the HImalayas. Taken literally, all Indians, Pakistanis, Bhutanese, Bangladeshis and Nepalese would be Hindus.
For all practical purposes, in India at least, a Hindu is someone who is not Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Parsee or atheist. Except for the purposes of family law where Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs are considered as Hindus.
The absence of central “church” or unified clergy, the definition of a “hindu” is at best an educated guess, at worst a political construct.
ISKCON has one vision of Hinduism, but that is NOT the only vision of Hinduism by any means.
“Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divinity within, by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy – by one, or more, or all of these – and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details.”
This is the best definition of Hinduism and religion that I have come across. It is said by some one I consider as the only Lion hearted man in India in the last 1000 years! A man who inspired Jamshedji Tata to start the Indian Institute of Sciences at Bangalore: Swami Vivekananda.
The term ‘Practising Hindu’ is a very relative term. We all practice religion in one way or the other and to me it’s simply a ‘state of mind’.
We all want to have an organised society and the argument to have a prefect society will go on for as long as mankind exists. ‘Religion’ is the core of this organised society and this can never be the same for everybody as every person’s interpretation and perspective on life is different and humanity after 1000s of years is still fighting to find a common ground.
Makes interesting!
http://rdr.hopto.org/Pseudosecularism.pps
Practicing Hindu = Temple going, God fearing Hindu.
Same is true with Christians, Jewish and Muslims. As long as you go to house of worship on regular basis, you are a ‘practicing….’ in the eyes of others!!
What people follow according to their wish constitutes Hinduism. If they want to follow Hinduism as 5 or 10 sutras, its upto them. Hinduism can be so many things for so many of us. As long as my sense of connection to God is unharmed and people are not committing crimes in the name of Hinduism, I am fine with whatever or however people follow Hinduism.
A Hindu is one who accepts the validity of the Vedas. However, Hinduism is probably the only religion which encourages debates and accepts diverse points of view. Also, it is an individualistic religion and one need not belong to any group to be a Hindu. Any attempt at institutionalisation has always ended in corruption of values. Hinduism encourages one to improves oneself to reach a higher plateau and ultimately escape the cycle of rebirth and attain moksha.
Kadana Kuthuhala’s perspective is the most refreshing one I have seen on this topic. Religion is indeed a state of mind. Defining it serves no purpose other than triggering an endless cycle of argument. Focus instead on drawing attention to the evil that self-appointed representatives of man-made religions have caused. These followers / practitioners of magic have divided humanity into classes and driven one against the other. Look at the larger picture and realize the irony of kneeling down before a person an idol, structure or pagan symbol; religion has caused more wars than maintaining peace.
I think Iskon has mostly got it right.
1. Prayer/Worship – Dhyana/Bhakti – Though I personally feel Krishna was a philosopher and Rama, a king.
2. Vedas/Upanishads/Gita – Gnana
3. Temples/Social work – Bhakti/Karma
4. Vegetarianism – Karma – All Hindus are indeed passive vegetarians. The Brahmin angle is disgusting.
5. Vices – Karma – A person who adheres to 1,2 and 3 won’t be smoking or drinking.
“Look at the larger picture and realize the irony of kneeling down before a person an idol, structure or pagan symbol;”
I say why not? He/She deserves as much freedom as you do in turning your nose at such practices. Your post carries with it a tinge of preachy self-righteousness that is as dangerous as self-styled religious heads.
As long as there is opinion and knowledge ( Yes that includes yours), there will be conflict; As long as there is death and misery, there will be religion. So, eternal conflict is inevitable.
The problem can be mitigated a little by non-exclusionary religions. Religion becomes the cause for violence when it becomes an identity. Religion should be the quest for fundamental principles whose validity can be verified in this lifetime not in heavens or hells after death.
The problem is the human psyche that seeks security; the human psyche that seeks permanence in impermanence: religion then becomes a crutch and a numbers game.
One who does not practise any of these rituals but yet follows the path of spirituality is also a Hindu, the best among them.
something not totally unrelated
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071121/od_nm/lawsuit_britain_dc;_ylt=AsG6xwV4Wk1FbvUUKk9L7P2s0NUE
It is unfortunate that hinduism in London is trying to follow the semitic death cult’s definitions of a religion. Why the heck does a religion have to control what its adherent eat or not eat. I am a vegetarian, but I do not have any problem in other hindus eating meat if they like it. I would dread the day when hinduism starts micromanaging the life of adherents like Islam does.
We should stop moulding hinduism on the lines of semitic death cults.
Mr Melange, you speak thus because of your mind has been taken over by passages, rituals, rites and rigid conforms imposed by your own religion. You are also used to living with religious authority imposed upon you . The bright side is it’s good to know you acknowledge that religions are a poison on society.
As you yourself said “As long as there is death and misery, there will be religion.” Now, I care nothing for those who want to worship their gods, they are free to do so but a majority abuse the right to freedom of expression and publicly display their religion. This is one of the sparks from which conflict ignites to a rapidly spreading inferno from which there is no escape. Thus we have been doomed for centuries. Following a religion is an intimate and private rite and should remain so. To start with, the less talk there is of religion, the better.
troll article. loaded with sleaze and innuendos.
TS,
Why do you think so? What is sleazy?
“Mr Melange, you speak thus because of your mind has been taken over by passages, rituals, rites and rigid conforms imposed by your own religion. You are also used to living with religious authority imposed upon you .”
Shri Aatmapudi avarey,
Respectfully, Assumption is the mother of all fuck Ups. I make one comment and you start psychoanalyzing!! Organized religion may be poison, But, not all religions are organized. There are some that fit perfectly the private role you ascribe for it. There are “religions” that have underlying them a possibility for deep biological transformation, not some silly “state of mind” mumbo jumbo.
Sorry for the multiple posts: But, here is something relevant about definitions.
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm
Why get angry and defensive, Mr Melange? Are your emotions not a casualty of the religion you are faithful to? I merely stated the obvious and there is a lot of truth in it. I can understand if it is hard to swallow that all religions are organized. Every one of them is, sadly and the wonder of religion is that it easily entices those that are weak of mind. And in this world, there are countless people who fall in that category. This majority ( that includes you) will ensure that organized religions will not only survive but also rule the world. Heck, they ARE already ruling the world and have been doing so since centuries.
When one is born into a religion he is by definition belongs to that religion, unless he converts to another. It is as simple as that. It is downright silly to define a Hindu or Christian or Islamist based on religious code of conduct.
>> When one is born into a religion
nobody is born into a religion. Its the parents and the society that shape a persons religion. That is why, the post reads “are you are practicing Hindu?”
Sidhharaamana Hundiya MLA deseyinda naanobba “Ahindu.”
>> nobody is born into a religion
That’s news to me. All along I believed that most Indian commoners like me are still being born into a caste or religion. Times are achanging! Pardon my ignorance Guvnor.
What they have done in England is sad and the practicing Hindu will probably never understand Hinduism beyond the Vedic rituals just like the masses in India for whom the rituals matter more than the core tenets of Hinduism. The essence of Hinduism is in Upanishads. Most of us fail to realize that. The `Hindus’ in Britain are no exception.
In my view, Hindu Dharma is ‘law of relationship’ and practicing Hindu Dharma is application of this law in behavior and conduct e.g. paying respect to every one in recognition of divinity, extending help in recognition of oneness, fair to give and fair to take in accordance with the vedic principle of ‘sarve bhavantu sukhinanah’, not causing injuring to any one seeing the existence of God every where etc. etc..