So "Hindu" is not a religion...?

[Fraggle Rocker]

One of you nice people recently clarified to me that our use of the term "the Hindu religion" is incorrect. I think you said "Hindu" was a name popularized by the British occupying forces for the Indian people west of the Indus River. That the "Hindu" people have had many faiths over the millennia and that they overlap to an extent. That Buddhism was "the Hindu religion" for a long time and that it still has almost as much claim to that title as those that focus on Ganesha or Shiva (forgive me if those random references don't make sense).

Then I read the article in today's Washington Post about the Angkor Wat temple. It's being loved to death: tourists are overwhelming the world's largest religious structure and putting more wear on it than it's suffered in 1100 years.

According to the article, the surrounding city of Angkor, which once had a population of one million, "started as a Hindu city, and turned to Buddhism in later centuries. Its religious life always included a strong dose of animism as well."

The city in Cambodia that for centuries dominated the culture and politics of Southeast Asia--a Hindu city? From the rest of the text, I don't believe the writer meant that it was populated by people from India. He surely meant that it was "Hindu" in its religion, and he's even drawn the line between Hinduism and Buddhism.

I realize that the writer, Anthony Faiola, is no religious scholar. But neither am I. So I am now thoroughly confused. What does "Hindu" mean when referring to religion, or to a religion, or to a group of religions? If it's the wrong word--or even worse, disrespectful--what is the right word? Or does it just illustrate our ignorance of India?

And does the fact that I've never heard an Indian object to our usage illustrate my hypothesis: that polytheistic cultures generally tolerate diversity and thereby foster the advancement of civilization, in a way that monotheistic cultures, with their philosophy of "We and only we are right, dammit," generally do not? Not that my hypothesis needs more illustration lately than the front page of any newspaper.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hinduism refers (currently) to all religions based on the Vedas. Some Hindus believe that Gautama Buddha was a reincarnation of Vishnu (one of the HIndu trinity) and accept Buddhists as Hindus.

However Buddhists may not necessarily embrace that opinion.

Hinduism and Buddhism are two closely related Dharmic religions[1][2] that are in some ways parallel to each other and in other ways divergent in theology and practice.

Hinduism, like Buddhism under Sakyamuni Buddha, is a post-Vedic religion and some would say a post-Buddhist religion as mention of the Buddha is found in most of the Puranas.[3] The word "Hindu" finds no mention in any pre-Gupta period.

Hiuen Tsang who visited India country between AD 630 and 645 says that while the word “Shin-tu” (Chine-se for “Hindu”) could be heard outside our borders, it was unknown within the country.[4]

The word Sanātana Dharma ( सनातन धर्म ), is used by many Hindus to identify their religion, but it was used by all Dharmic religions and found in the Buddhist text, Dhammapada, with the Dhamma or law in Vedic thought being identified as being eternal law and the King of Kings in such texts as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads. Buddhism has no singular founder by tradition as Buddhism is a continuation of a long line of Buddhas, this is similar to the claim of Jains and Hindus who claim their teachings are from a long line of sages.

 

[lightgigantic]

One of you nice people recently clarified to me that our use of the term "the Hindu religion" is incorrect. I think you said "Hindu" was a name popularized by the British occupying forces for the Indian people west of the Indus River.

actually it was the muslims
basically there are three historical periods
- in ancient history the term hindu was non-existent (it doesn't appear in any vedic literature)
- in medieval history it was introduced by the invading muslims - it was kind of a derogatory term - the local inhabitants identified themselves as hindus when they were before the muslim overlords, but in their own personal dealings they never used it - kind of like if a big powerful person starts calling you charlie when your name is actually bob you start to respond to the name charlie
- in contemporary times, the british were partially successful in homogenizing vedic culture - mainly by drawing up the syllabuses for academia in india - this was ironically compounded by the independence movement of india where you had all sorts of charismatic and quasi religious personalities boldly declaring for people to patriotically identify as a hindu for political unity

That the "Hindu" people have had many faiths over the millennia and that they overlap to an extent.

there are different disciplines based on interpretations of the vedas and they come into vogue at particular times in particular circumstances

That Buddhism was "the Hindu religion" for a long time and that it still has almost as much claim to that title as those that focus on Ganesha or Shiva (forgive me if those random references don't make sense).

buddha actually rejected the vedas - but the catch is that his incarnation is indicated in the vedas - specifically his task was to deliver the atheists - still, for practical purposes a "hindu" wouldn't worship buddha, since one would have to reject the vedas to properly follow his instruction - that said a hindu would certainly offer lord buddha their respect (you can even find devotional songs that glorify buddha in hinduism - but thats about as far as it goes)

Then I read the article in today's Washington Post about the Angkor Wat temple. It's being loved to death: tourists are overwhelming the world's largest religious structure and putting more wear on it than it's suffered in 1100 years.

According to the article, the surrounding city of Angkor, which once had a population of one million, "started as a Hindu city, and turned to Buddhism in later centuries. Its religious life always included a strong dose of animism as well."

The city in Cambodia that for centuries dominated the culture and politics of Southeast Asia--a Hindu city? From the rest of the text, I don't believe the writer meant that it was populated by people from India. He surely meant that it was "Hindu" in its religion, and he's even drawn the line between Hinduism and Buddhism.

the vedic culture was previously spread all over that area - and according to the vedas the entire world too

I realize that the writer, Anthony Faiola, is no religious scholar. But neither am I. So I am now thoroughly confused. What does "Hindu" mean when referring to religion, or to a religion, or to a group of religions? If it's the wrong word--or even worse, disrespectful--what is the right word? Or does it just illustrate our ignorance of India?

probably a mix of all three - actually its the opinion of contemporary religious scholars that hinduism is more of an orthopraxy (focus on the performance of ritual) rather than orthodoxy (focus on a philosophical conclusion), so it makes the whole analyisis of the contemporary situation a bit tricky.

in terms of what the muslims actually perceived when they were crossing the indus river so many years ago, you could probably say they were seeing varnashramites
.... in other words the regular daily performances of duty by a cross section of society socialized around vedic scriptures

And does the fact that I've never heard an Indian object to our usage illustrate my hypothesis: that polytheistic cultures generally tolerate diversity and thereby foster the advancement of civilization, in a way that monotheistic cultures, with their philosophy of "We and only we are right, dammit," generally do not? Not that my hypothesis needs more illustration lately than the front page of any newspaper.

vedic culture is traditionally quite tolerant and could cater for a wide variety of persons at different levels of spiritual and material advancement- and its still there to a degree in india

 

[UltiTruth]

What does "Hindu" mean when referring to religion, or to a religion, or to a group of religions? If it's the wrong word--or even worse, disrespectful--what is the right word? Or does it just illustrate our ignorance of India?

And does the fact that I've never heard an Indian object to our usage illustrate my hypothesis: that polytheistic cultures generally tolerate diversity and thereby foster the advancement of civilization, in a way that monotheistic cultures, with their philosophy of "We and only we are right, dammit," generally do not? Not that my hypothesis needs more illustration lately than the front page of any newspaper.

Hinduism is the oldest religion, but it is also the youngest if you consider it is a living and evolving religion. The basic tenets being that one can never understand the great illusion that is creation, that God is omnipresent and that God keeps incarnating in various forms and shapes is what keeps it reinventing itself. Given the openness, the evolution and adaption of some such pieces of Hinduism can be in completely opposite directions, and has to be understood in the spirit than the letter.

A Hindu is comfortable visiting a church or a dargah, and has no guilt in doing so, given that the principle is that God comes in different forms at different times - Allah or Jesus not excluded. A much revered incarnation of recent times, Shirdi Sai Baba is actually either a muslim or has grown as a muslim.

As for the word "Hindu", in whatever context it originated, it does not carry any negative connotation right now. Just the way words get bad connotations over time (say the disrespectful 'prostitute'), this one has lost any negative touch, if it had some at any point of time. And despite the history, hinduism is very much a religion today, though it is not too easy to fit into a frame.

 

[UltiTruth]

...that hinduism is more of an orthopraxy (focus on the performance of ritual) rather than orthodoxy (focus on a philosophical conclusion)

And don't forget the rituals adapt themselves depending on situation - nothing is set in stone! And the underlying philosophy is most often appreciated than not.

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

buddha actually rejected the vedas - but the catch is that his incarnation is indicated in the vedas - specifically his task was to deliver the atheists - still, for practical purposes a "hindu" wouldn't worship buddha, since one would have to reject the vedas to properly follow his instruction - that said a hindu would certainly offer lord buddha their respect (you can even find devotional songs that glorify buddha in hinduism - but thats about as far as it goes)

Which Veda is he indicated in?

 

[S.A.M.]

Light:

I was under the impression the word "hindu" originated from the word "sindhu" which was what the Moghals called the people east of the Indus river?

 

[UltiTruth]

Yes, and I haven't heard of negative connotation to 'Hindu'. I thought even the Moghuls prided in ruling 'Hindusthan'?!

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, and I haven't heard of negative connotation to 'Hindu'.

Neither have I, but it appears to be true.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/htemples2/app3.htm

There is, therefore, no running away from the fact that the word “Hindu” occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient Iranians who used this word for designating this country as well as its people. They did not have to coin this word out of thin air. It was simply their way of pronouncing the word “Sindhu”, the name of the mighty river which has always been a major landmark for travellers to this country from the north and the west. To start with, the word seems to have been used for provinces and the people in the vicinity of the Sindhu. But in due course, it was extended to cover all parts of this country and all its people. The word also spread to countries to the north and west of Iran. The ancient Greeks were quite familiar with the words “Indus” and “Indoi” - their way of pronouncing “Sindhu” and “Sindhîs”. The ancient Arabs, Turks (Šakas, KuSãNas, etc.), Mongolian (HûNas, Kirãtas, etc.) and the Chinese were also familiar with the word, sometimes in their own variations on it such as “Shin-tu”. It may thus be said that the word “Hindu” had acquired a national connotation, since the days of the Avesta, although in the eyes of only the foreigners. At the same time, it may be noted that the word was oblivious of the fact that “Hindus” were organized in numerous castes, and subscribed to many religious sects.

There is also evidence that at some stage in their history the ancient Iranians started using the word “Hindu” in more than a purely descriptive sense. The word seems to have acquired for them a derogatory meaning as well. Scholars are not quite certain, nor in complete agreement, about the nature of differences that developed between the Vedics of this country and the Avestans of Iran. The two people had had much in common, and for a long time, in the realm of language, religion, rituals, and ethical norms. It is surmised that the rift appeared with the rise of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) as a religious reformer in the region round Bãhlîka (Balkh), and became bitter by the time the Archaeminid Dynasty rose to power in Iran. Zorastrianism became the state religion of Iran, and the Iranians started looking down upon the Hindus as worshippers of “dev” (Skt. deva), their word for demon. They were using the word “Ahura” (Skt. Asura) for their own Deity.

 

[lightgigantic]

And don't forget the rituals adapt themselves depending on situation - nothing is set in stone! And the underlying philosophy is most often appreciated than not.

therefore god is constantly re-establishing orthodoxy in the material world

BG 4.8: To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.

Lightgigantic:

Which Veda is he indicated in?

The Buddha in Hindu scriptures

Amongst the Puranic texts he is mentioned as one of the ten Avataras:

The Buddha is described in important Hindu scriptures, including the Puranas. A partial list of Puranas mentioning the Buddha is as follows:

[See Link for More Scripture]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu

Light:

I was under the impression the word "hindu" originated from the word "sindhu" which was what the Moghals called the people east of the Indus river?

That's correct - the "s" got pronounced as a "h"

Yes, and I haven't heard of negative connotation to 'Hindu'. I thought even the Moghuls prided in ruling 'Hindusthan'?!

Of course it is not a derogatory term now - its just like examining the origins of many words that start off as colloquialisms and the like

 

[Sock puppet path]

Hinduism is the oldest religion, but it is also the youngest if you consider it is a living and evolving religion. The basic tenets being that one can never understand the great illusion that is creation, that God is omnipresent and that God keeps incarnating in various forms and shapes is what keeps it reinventing itself. Given the openness, the evolution and adaption of some such pieces of Hinduism can be in completely opposite directions, and has to be understood in the spirit than the letter.

A Hindu is comfortable visiting a church or a dargah, and has no guilt in doing so, given that the principle is that God comes in different forms at different times - Allah or Jesus not excluded. A much revered incarnation of recent times, Shirdi Sai Baba is actually either a muslim or has grown as a muslim.

As for the word "Hindu", in whatever context it originated, it does not carry any negative connotation right now. Just the way words get bad connotations over time (say the disrespectful 'prostitute'), this one has lost any negative touch, if it had some at any point of time. And despite the history, hinduism is very much a religion today, though it is not too easy to fit into a frame.

It sounds like Hinduism is a living religion as opposed to the abrahamic faiths.

 

[Prince_James]

Thanks, Lightgigantic.

 

[UltiTruth]

It sounds like Hinduism is a living religion as opposed to the abrahamic faiths.

Absolutely, imho.