[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao) very long
This is reg the definition of the term Hindu given by some one in
an earlier post on the topic on the news.groups. it seems the
"original" discussion took place during s.r.v. creation]
[Paragraphs with * before them are excerpts from a previous post]
* A Hindu has two tenets (apart from others which differ from sect to sect):
(1) Belief in the doctrines of karma and rebirth
(2) Belief in Vedas as infallible and their acceptance as
[Since this post essentially deals with the term Hindu, and not the RFD
on s.r.h.reorganisation, i am not posting it to news.groups]
* A certain nettor (name withheld to protect the guilty) argued that the
definition proposed in this thread excluded some vaishnavas from hindus.
It is an amusement to read about some kind of "guilt" associated with
not agreeing with your honour 's definition of the term hindu.
* This person is also admittedly ignorant of the previous discussions
about SRV. So let me quickly go over past history:
Thanks for the understanding.
* Incidentally, this definition is just a slightly modified form of the
definition proposed by Brian K Smith. I don't have the exact reference,
but I believe that it appeared in the History of Regligions sometime in the
eighties.
So we have to accept? [there is a saying in telugu:
Swaamulavaaru cheppaaru kaabatti....
(because swaamiji said so...)
* A Hindu has two tenets (apart from others which differ from sect to sect):
(1) Belief in the doctrines of karma and rebirth
(2) Belief in Vedas as infallible and their acceptance as
(i can not speculate on the continuation of the clause(2) if there is
some, as it was not found in the previous post)
To say that a given definition is inadequate, one needs only to show
one counter example. it is for the defendants of the definition to prove
that any and all such counter examples are wrong, or else to modify
the definition itself.
clauses (1) and (2) above require
(1) existence of belief
(2) existence of belief in the doctrine of Karma and rebirth
(3) existence of belief in Vedas
(4) existence of belief in Vedas that they are infallible
(5) acceptance there of
Webster defines belief:
be-lief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or
confidence in a person or thing. 2. Mental acceptance of or conviction in
the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as
true, esp. a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of
persons.[ME bileve, alteration of OE geleafa]
Catch phrases: "placing trust or confidence", "accepted as true" and
"convition in the truth or actuality"
There are many that have a feeling that there could be "some truth" in
karma theory or vedas. or there may be some who might consider them to
be "possibly true". but all of them may not yet 'believe' it. They may
not have a 'conviction' but only have a "suspicion" that something is
true. [as a side story: an athiest was seen praying. and some one asked
why, and he responds:"just in case..."]
The definition of the term 'hindu' given above excludes all those who
"believe" that they are hindus but not so sure about karma doctrine or
the truth in the Vedas.
I suspect that the notion that one "should believe" in vedas for
being a hindu comes from drawing similarity to bible and koran.
Even Karma doctrine is not uniquely understood. if one wants to claim
the above as a 'definition' of the term hindu, one needs to give at least
some definition or axiomatic expressions to karma theory. for example
there are some who believe that karma and result are not related the way
they are popularly understood to be related (as "cycle of life-and-death
until attaining moksha by appropriate action").
(a) [karmamo` phalamichchu kartraagna valana,
karmamu daivamaa? karmamoo jadame`]
Action gives result on the orders [at the instance] of performer.
is action God ?
Action too is inert.
[Ramana Maharshi]
(b) Yoga vasistha raamaayanam describes rebirth itself as an illusion
on the lines of dreams.
(c) Sankara himself says (paraphrasing from memory) ' i have been saying
that you and i have same characteristics. but how can i arrogate my
self to say i am you? Oh god, You are like an ocean wherein i am a drop'
Are the three concepts identical in relation to karma doctrine?
How can an inert action lead to moksha? When rebirth is itself
a dream where is the question or need for breaking a life-death
rebirth cycle? If one is part of God like a drop in ocean, what
difference will it make in breaking or not breaking the karma
cycle ? is mere knowledge not adequate?
[ofcourse i am not interested in degressing into philosophy. I am
not even curious as to how one can reconcile the three views. my point
is that the definition assumes that hindus are conscious of "the" karma
doctrine and that they have belief in its "truth". How can this be
accurate in the face of lack of even understanding of what karma
doctrine is about by a common man.... like me?]
one easy solution ofcourse is to declare me as non-hindu.
[following one para is by S Rao]
>I would say both tenets do not apply to Tattvavaadis; there is no "belief"
>in anything, only acceptance of what can be proved thru hard logic and
>scripture (the latter itself to be vetted by logic!); there is no belief
>in the theory of karma as distinct from its status as the product of
>knowledge deriving from the Vedas -- given the Vedas, one can derive the
>doctrine of karma, which means that your two tenets are not independent.
* The last sentence would not be accepted by most Western Indologists.
The definition is meant to forestall objection from all quarters.
.............. [A] (just for referencing later in the article)
>In addition, Jains, naiyaayikaas, etc., are not Hindu by the above
>notions, because they have no use for the Vedas.
* Firstly, I am not sure that Jains consider themselves to be a sect of
Hinduism. People like Padmanabha Jain, writing in academic publications,
implictely assume that Jainism is a religion seperate from Hinduism.
This itself is taking a side of an argument. There are hindus who
consider Jainism and Buddism as part of hinduism. Constituent
assembly debates on indian constitution reflect this. ofcourse one
can argue that constituent assembly discussion and the (restricted)
use of the term hindu to encompass jainism and buddism as mere
'political' arguments, just like one can argue the SC decision on
RKM case as being mere 'legal' statement.
[following one para is by S Rao]
>Consider -- the Sri-Vaishnavas accept the writings of the Alvars as being
>authoritative independently of the Vedas, not founded upon the latter;
* P. Dileepan argued in SRV that Azhwaars are supposed to have distilled
the Vedas into the naalaayira divya prabandham. The similes quoted in
`The Vernacular Veda' (reference suggested by Mani Varadaraajan) support
this. [The similes I remember are Veda = head waters of rivers,
NDV = clear waters at the lower courses; Veda = salty waters of
ocean, NDV = rain water from clouds arising over the ocean.]
But the definiton requires one to accept "Vedas" as infallible truth--
not "the derived texts" or "the texts that have some resemblance to vedas".
Refer to your own arguement at [A] above. Is it not necessary to mention
NDV as another alternative sub-clause of your definition etc...?
* My definition says `accept Veda as part of their Scripture'.
No your definition does not say so. it requires accepting veda not
merely as an authritative text, but accept as Infallible "truth".
[consider asking a modern day christian: do you think bible is a
sacred scripture? Yes. Do you believe resurrection of christ or virgin
Mary: may be, may be not. will this constitute accepting bible as
"infallible truth"? ]
[following one para is by S Rao]
>and the Advaitis do not accept all Vedas as authoritative, since their
>doctrine teaches that some portions of the Vedas, the karma-kaanDa, is
>of no value,
* Of no value for moksha. That karma-kaaNDa produces the intended
results is not denied; It is only said that such results based on
desires mires one in samsara.
* Same goes for atatvavaada. They are said to be simplifications
meant for leading to full truth. Sankara explains his stand with
`arundhatigraahanyaaya'. [If a bit of self-advertisement is allowed:
Watch for this in the Sanskrit mailing list, in my series on nyaayas.]
Have you considered this self-advertisement, before pronouncing "guilt"
when i clearly stated in my prv posts that my indulgence is merely based
on news.groups postings?
[following one para is from S Rao]
>Lastly, there are Hindus who [also] worship Jesus, Santoshi Mata,
>Ayyappa, Sai Baba, etc., and such worship cannot be described as being
>founded upon the Vedas. As such, they cannot be Hindus by the quoted
>paragraph.
* Read my (2) again. A Hindu uses Veda as an icon for scripture.
It does not mean that he is a Vedic literalist. Worship of Vinaayaka
is not in the Rgveda. But that does not mean that a Rgvedin worshipping
Vinaayaka with `gaNaanaaM tvaa gaNapatiM havaamahe ...' is disregarding
RgVeda.
The question is not about a rigvedin worshipping a non rigvedic god.
The question is about non-vedin worshipping ONLY non-vedic god [note:
"only" --and NOT "also"]
Accepting is an explicit positive action. 'Not rejecting' is passive
inaction. they can not be equated.
Your (2) above does not say veda is an icon for scripture; it does not even
say Veda is a scripture. it says hindus believe vedas as Infallible truth.
If the definition says 'hindus may not explicitly reject or disregard
vedas' then it is another matter.
some more counter examples to keep yourself busy...
(a) My understanding of Sai Baba philosophy is to take good from all
scriptures. (like in bahai faith?). Vedas are also considered
scriptures. Yet, there is no need for "belief" in vedas, nor a
belief in them as "infallible" for a Saibaba devotee.
(b) You are assuming that the people who worship Ayyappa will have to
accept Vedas as infallible. Not rejecting Vedas, is not same as,
accepting them as infallible truths.
(c) I know of many hindus who say that if their 'guru' tells them
to follow a certain philosophy, it is ultimate for them, they dont
care where it came from ... vedas, bible or guru.
(d) Some swamyji (Omjee?) does only Satyanaraayana vratam and preaches
only satyanaarayana vratam. He does not care about vedas, upanishads or
anything. Arguing that he/ his followers accept Vedas as infallible
truth is twisting reality to suit to the definition. their rejection
of vedas is not needed to prove counter example to the definition.
Their explicit acceptance of Vedas, on the other hand, is needed to
prove the definition right.
(e) How do you fit the devotees of Batakamma and other village goddesses
into the definition? in most cases they do not even know, or care about,
vedas. They believe "if you dont make certain 'sacrifices' your village
will be ruined" kind of notions.
(f) I know of a particular community that believes in self-inflicted
pain as a way to reach god. i noticed them in Guntur; the people of
this community, beating themselves with Koradaa, seek alms. What is
their relationship with Vedas? will you argue: that they do not know
consciously but they do believe that Vedas are infallible truths
subconsciously?
(g) What is the status of children not yet initiated into vedic
indoctrination? Do they cease to be hindus until such indoctrination?
(h) My understanding of vira shiva (lingaayat) -- based on discussion
with a lingaayat -- is that they do not accept the authority of vedas.
(i) I know of a lady who did, throughout her adult life until death, only
one thing: reciting snake and dristi mantras. thousands go to her for
her to perform such mantra on the affected member of their beloeved ones.
i doubt she ever cared about vedas or karma theory. is she to be thrown
out of hindu fold? how many of us have not come across such individuals
especially those of us from village background?
* Another argument that S. Rao offers is `X is a Hindu, but he does not
follow my interpretation of Vedas. So he is not Vedic.'. This is
non-sense because, Hindus have always had the freedom to interpret
Veda. They cannot be said to disregard the Veda just because they
they differ from you. [Such arguments are common in sectarian
polemics. But Eastern Orthodox do not cease to be Christians because
some evangelist says so.]
[following one line from S Rao]
> 3> [this definition implies that] Jains and Buddhists are not Hindus.
* So now Buddhists are Hindus too?
Are you saying that Buddists do not cease to be hindus because some
buddists say so? (before arguing 'all' buddists say so --or 'all' eastern
orthodox's say so-- please define what you mean by a buddist. if you say
buddists are those who consider buddha as god, heena yanis dont count but
most hindus count. if you say one who will believe in buddist philosophy,
many hindus count. if you say buddist is one who clamis he is one and not
the one who does not claim so, then all those vaishnavas that claim
themselves to be vaishnavas but not as hindus, cease to be hindus).
* Vidhyanath Rao
I am not concerned at all with the semantics of religious terminology. I
was only saying that despite S Rao et al arguing against the said
definition of the term hindu, they are entitle to be heard on the RFD,
and must be commended for their efforts in putting together a decent
proposal.
i was only objecting to criticizing the RFD for wrong reasons.
Now let me confess: the definition does cover a "significant"
proportion of Hindus -- the intellectual and well informed vedic
scholars. But this fact will probably be accepted by S Rao et al
too.
(Or who knows: You might argue that your definition completely
defines the hindus, and those that do not fit are no hindus at all!)
when one discovers a thing or propounds a theory one feels elated
and feels that the universe is conquerred. but almost every
such finding, history has shown, is followed by discussion of the
limitations thereof. Instead of pronouncing "guilt" on all those
who find fault with the given definition, (like what church did
to Galelio) it might be better to ponder over afresh and do some
patch work.
