Are Sikhs,Buddhists and Jains Hindus? - Page 2

niranjan · 03-03-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guesto

All this is leftist propaganda. Brahmins have always been a very small, poor population, so there's no way they had any power to abuse people. Speaking of abuse, it's funny how people constantly talk about non-existent Brahmin intolerance, even as they turn a blind eye to Islamic atrocities which killed millions of Hindus!

Hi Guesto. You can rectify the faults of your ancestors by extending a brotherly hand to your hindu brothers from the lower castes, and ending discrimination against them by the upper castes. I understand this is because of ignorance of the true import of HInduism. You must educate the upper castes of the true teachings of HInduism and permanently end all forms of discrimination.

"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

03-03-2007, 03:31 PM

Let's keep it simple and straight to the point.

Sikhs, Buddhist and Jains are NOT Hindus and they never have been historically. In ancient times Buddhist and Jains were seen as a seperate religion to Hinduism but were still very influential to India. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have their own scriptures and own spiritual teachings some of which are at odds with Hindu (Vedic) teachings. Hindu teachings originate from the Vedas (srutis) and were further elaborated upon in the smritis.
These religions are all Indic religions in that they share many common beliefs and all originate in India, all are tolerant and believe that there is more than one path to the divine.

03-03-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 2

Let's keep it simple and straight to the point.

Sikhs, Buddhist and Jains are NOT Hindus and they never have been historically. In ancient times Buddhist and Jains were seen as a seperate religion to Hinduism but were still very influential to India. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have their own scriptures and own spiritual teachings some of which are at odds with Hindu (Vedic) teachings. Hindu teachings originate from the Vedas (srutis) and were further elaborated upon in the smritis.
These religions are all Indic religions in that they share many common beliefs and all originate in India, all are tolerant and believe that there is more than one path to the divine.

You are wrong. The Upanishads were opposed to Vedic teachings and many were athiestic philosophy. The Gita is an Upanishad and os not Vedic as people think it is. Brahmins obsorbed it and made it Vedic.

Also, you are wrong because when Muslims first came to India, everyone in India began calling themsevles Hindus- that inlcuded many Buddhists and Jains. It wasn't until the British worked with the Brahmins in organizing Hinduism as an official religion the Brahmins began forming Hinduism by organizing all of the scriptures and claiming them all to be originated from the Vedas.

Also, all of the Hindu panths that were monotheistic and still worshipped Hindu Gods out right rejected the Vedas. So are they not considered Hindu? You have to remember India has always been a country with many many panths and Gurus and spiritual Paths. There is no such religion called Hinduism in reality. It was given as a gift to the Brahmins by the British.

I am not saying we should not call ourselves Hindu-but within Hinduism are many, many sects and not all of them follow the Vedas.

03-03-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hindu23

You are wrong. The Upanishads were opposed to Vedic teachings and many were athiestic philosophy. The Gita is an Upanishad and os not Vedic as people think it is. Brahmins obsorbed it and made it Vedic.

Also, you are wrong because when Muslims first came to India, everyone in India began calling themsevles Hindus- that inlcuded many Buddhists and Jains. It wasn't until the British worked with the Brahmins in organizing Hinduism as an official religion the Brahmins began forming Hinduism by organizing all of the scriptures and claiming them all to be originated from the Vedas.

Also, all of the Hindu panths that were monotheistic and still worshipped Hindu Gods out right rejected the Vedas. So are they not considered Hindu? You have to remember India has always been a country with many many panths and Gurus and spiritual Paths. There is no such religion called Hinduism in reality. It was given as a gift to the Brahmins by the British.

I am not saying we should not call ourselves Hindu-but within Hinduism are many, many sects and not all of them follow the Vedas.

I forgot to add that all of the Hindu saints from the Bhakti movements organized Panths and rejected the Vedas. Their religion never grew big because of mainstream Hinduism and Brahmin domination.

I also forgot to add how Buddhism and Jainism were began to be seen as different religions. They were Athiestic philosophies that were organized and therefore could not easily be absorbed by Brahmins. In addition, when western scholars began studying the religions of India, Jains and Buddhists were a minority and in order for them to study these minorty faiths they began to see them differently from the larger Hindu population, thus they got labeled as non vedic.

03-03-2007, 11:32 PM

Guesto,

I just wanted to say that it is quite Brahminical of you to come on here and boast your ego but not only announcing you're a Brahmin but at least not acknowledging what has happened in the past.

Niranjan,

I agree with you. I do not think all of Hinduism is the work of Brahmins. A lot of times people fail to understand how much non- Brahmins nhave contributed to Hinduism. It's much much more then you think. Brahmins just get the credit because they arfe the ruling power and have been since the Gupta era.

03-04-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hindu23

You are wrong. The Upanishads were opposed to Vedic teachings and many were athiestic philosophy. The Gita is an Upanishad and os not Vedic as people think it is. Brahmins obsorbed it and made it Vedic.

Why did people allow Brahmins to absorb it and make it Vedic? It doesn't make sense. If they opposed the vedas, how could they let it go to the Brahmins so easily. Also if it was oposed to Vedic teachings how can you make it Vedic? Upanishads don't seem atheistic and certainly most of the Acharya's in their commentaries don't view them as atheistic, whereas they view Jainism and Buddhism as atheistic. Both Jainism and Buddhism are opposed to Vedic teachings and to this day they are not seen as Vedic. The Upanishads seems like an evolution of the vedic religion which is what I consider Hinduism today is.

Quote:

Also, you are wrong because when Muslims first came to India, everyone in India began calling themsevles Hindus- that inlcuded many Buddhists and Jains.

Where is the proof of this? Also you are wrong it was the Persian Zorastrians before Islam existed that contributed to the name Hindu. The muslims came later and used the same term. Buddhist and Jains may have classified themselves as Hindu to distinguish themselves from the muslims and also for political reasons. During Emperor Asoka's time Buddhism was seen as different from what we call "Hinduism". They have seperate scriptures that clearly sets them apart from "Hindus".

Quote:

Also, all of the Hindu panths that were monotheistic and still worshipped Hindu Gods out right rejected the Vedas. So are they not considered Hindu?

What is the name of these paths? Are they Vaishnava, Shaivite, etc? Whay scriptures are they based on? I find that while many paths have little to do directly with the Vedas, they all claim descent from the vedas and praise the Vedas. Many of the post-vedic "Hindu" scriptures praise the Vedas.

Quote:

You have to remember India has always been a country with many many panths and Gurus and spiritual Paths. There is no such religion called Hinduism in reality. It was given as a gift to the Brahmins by the British.

Given to the Brahmins or everyone? I just wonder, going by your rationale is the Mahabharata, Puranas, Ramayana, Vedic or not? And what society is presented to us in their stories? Looks like a Vedic society to me.

Quote:

I am not saying we should not call ourselves Hindu-but within Hinduism are many, many sects and not all of them follow the Vedas.

Hinduism may consist of many sects but the religions of Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism look clearly distinct from it. They have distanced themselves from "the Hindus". The one sect that is not always considered Hindu is Tantra, yet some still see it as Hindu.

03-04-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 2

Why did people allow Brahmins to absorb it and make it Vedic? It doesn't make sense. If they opposed the vedas, how could they let it go to the Brahmins so easily. Also if it was oposed to Vedic teachings how can you make it Vedic? Upanishads don't seem atheistic and certainly most of the Acharya's in their commentaries don't view them as atheistic, whereas they view Jainism and Buddhism as atheistic. Both Jainism and Buddhism are opposed to Vedic teachings and to this day they are not seen as Vedic. The Upanishads seems like an evolution of the vedic religion which is what I consider Hinduism today is.

Where is the proof of this? Also you are wrong it was the Persian Zorastrians before Islam existed that contributed to the name Hindu. The muslims came later and used the same term. Buddhist and Jains may have classified themselves as Hindu to distinguish themselves from the muslims and

also for political reasons. During Emperor Asoka's time Buddhism was seen as different from what we call "Hinduism". They have seperate scriptures that clearly sets them apart from "Hindus".

What is the name of these paths? Are they Vaishnava, Shaivite, etc? Whay scriptures are they based on? I find that while many paths have little to do directly with the Vedas, they all claim descent from the vedas and praise the Vedas. Many of the post-vedic "Hindu" scriptures praise the Vedas.

Given to the Brahmins or everyone? I just wonder, going by your rationale is the Mahabharata, Puranas, Ramayana, Vedic or not? And what society is presented to us in their stories? Looks like a Vedic society to me.

Hinduism may consist of many sects but the religions of Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism look clearly distinct from it. They have distanced themselves from "the Hindus". The one sect that is not always considered Hindu is Tantra, yet some still see it as Hindu.

Number 2,

You ask me to give you referece for everything for proof which shows that you seem to have very little knowledge about Hindu history and religion. You seem to have failed to understand the formation of Hinduism as a religion and you insisted that everything in Hinduism is Vedic and others is not. Let me make it clear to you once again that the Upanishads are not Vedic. They were not written by Brahmins they were written by Royal bards and they out right rejected many Vedic practices. In addition, let me repeat once again write that many upanishadic teachings such as those of Kapila were athiestic. I suggest you read these yourself as it would take me too much time to come here and explain that to you. They may have incorporated certain teachings from Vedas but that does not make it Vedic. Sikhs also have words such as "Brahm" in the GGS but that does not make it Vedic.

There were many schools of thought prior to the Gupta era when Brahmins gained power. Like I said India has always been a place with many different traditions and religions in which you also failed to research.

Ibn Kurdhaba, an Arab who described in his writings to India that at his time there existed some 43 different religions. So are you saying that all of these people were all following the Vedic teachings? You have not only got to be kidding me with your Brahminical non-nense.

Another example I would give you since you want examples so much is:

Ashoka describes:

Asokan inscriptions also contain the term `brahmana va sramana', indicating a fundamental distinction between the Brahminists, followers of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, and the Sramanas or `nastika' heretics. Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

This means that the Brahmanas vs. Shramanas simply meant those religions that believed in a God and those that didn't, it does not mean that they were all Vedic.

I would also suggest you read the Jain and other versions of the Mahabharata in which they insists Lord Krishna and mant other characters were indeed Jain. I am not trying to put down Vedism hear but I am rather trying to show religions in India were always complex and you cannot say everything comes from the Vedas. That is modern Brahminical propoganda.

In addition, in the BC era there Sivaism, Bhagavatism (Vaishnavism), Shaktism, Vedism- these were all seperate religions. It was when Brahmins came into power after the Gupta era they organized all of the texts.

Your question is why did the Brahmins then except those scriptures and not Buddhist and Jain?

Simple enough, they were once national religions and they were opnely athiestic and also very organized. How could have the Brahmins obsorb them?

In addition,

The Bhakti movement, the Warkaris, Varkaris and Mahanubhav sects rejected Vedas while excepting other scriptures. For example, Mahanubhav, excepts Lord Krishna as their only Lord and the Holy Gita as well as the Holy Leela Charitras as their scriptures but not the Vedas. They believed in fundamental equality of all human biengs, equality of man and woman, they outright rejected caste and varna, and accepted universal brotherhood, but they remained within Hinduism.

In addition, Sant Dyaneshwar also criticized Vedas in many of his poems. Perhaps when I have time I can look through all my Bhakti books and post some for proof. He said the Vedas was empty. He remained Hindu.

So you need to rethink before you come here and make those claims.

03-05-2007, 03:21 PM

Before I say anything I must tell you that with all your so-called
"Hindu" learning you have failed to put into practice some basic Hindu teachings such as controlling of ones anger and being judgemental. You have judged me to be brahminical, I am neither a brahmin nor on their side. And you clearly were quite angry when writing your post, but why? Because I don't share your opinions? You need to learn that not everyone in the world is going to believe you, no matter what you say.

Quote:

Like I said India has always been a place with many different traditions and religions in which you also failed to research.

Actually I knew that, it's quite common knowledge. So what you think are the oldest religions in India? Shaivism, Vedism or Jainism? And who influenced what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hindu27

Let me make it clear to you once again that the Upanishads are not Vedic. They were not written by Brahmins they were written by Royal bards and they out right rejected many Vedic practices. In addition, let me repeat once again write that many upanishadic teachings such as those of Kapila were athiestic.

Upanishads are not Vedic? but why are they connected with the four Vedas? They form the end portions of the Vedas. I guess a "Hindu" monk like Swami Vivekananda must have been wrong then? According to the Upanishads themselves they are written by sages of all castes.

Quote:

You have not only got to be kidding me with your Brahminical non-nense.

Be careful with who you call a Brahmin. I'm nothing of the sort and don't support their propaganda. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

Quote:

Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

Strange you quote from a few arab sources. Since when have we been able to trust Arabs talking about Indian history? They even took some Mathematical ideas from India and went around the world claiming it to be their discovery.

Quote:

I would also suggest you read the Jain and other versions of the Mahabharata in which they insists Lord Krishna and mant other characters were indeed Jain.

Jain version of Mahabharata? Lord Krishna was a Jain? I find that hard to believe. I suppose a Jain version would have a Jain bias and let's be honest the Jain version is not exactly the version people know about is it? You accept the Gita as being non-vedic but there is a contradiction of Lord Krishna telling Arjuna to fight in the Kurukshetra war and the Jain teachings of absolute non-violence. The Mahabharata was attributed to Sage Vyasa who as most of us know was not a Brahmin and whose mother was a lower-caste fisherwoman. Yet, he is regarded as one of the greatest sages.

Quote:

They believed in fundamental equality of all human biengs, equality of man and woman, they outright rejected caste and varna, and accepted universal brotherhood, but they remained within Hinduism.

There is another sect that believes in all those things you mentioned. They are called Arya Samaj and they believe only in the Vedas. It must seem strange to you that a sect can be based solely on the Vedas and believe in those values you mentioned.

Quote:

So you need to rethink before you come here and make those claims.

Like I said, you need to learn to remain calm, control your anger and accept that not everyone believes you.

03-05-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 2

Before I say anything I must tell you that with all your so-called
"Hindu" learning you have failed to put into practice some basic Hindu teachings such as controlling of ones anger and being judgemental. You have judged me to be brahminical, I am neither a brahmin nor on their side. And you clearly were quite angry when writing your post, but why? Because I don't share your opinions? You need to learn that not everyone in the world is going to believe you, no matter what you say.

Actually I knew that, it's quite common knowledge. So what you think are the oldest religions in India? Shaivism, Vedism or Jainism? And who influenced what?

Upanishads are not Vedic? but why are they connected with the four Vedas? They form the end portions of the Vedas. I guess a "Hindu" monk like Swami Vivekananda must have been wrong then? According to the Upanishads themselves they are written by sages of all castes.

Be careful with who you call a Brahmin. I'm nothing of the sort and don't support their propaganda. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

Strange you quote from a few arab sources. Since when have we been able to trust Arabs talking about Indian history? They even took some Mathematical ideas from India and went around the world claiming it to be their discovery.

Jain version of Mahabharata? Lord Krishna was a Jain? I find that hard to believe. I suppose a Jain version would have a Jain bias and let's be honest the Jain version is not exactly the version people know about is it? You accept the Gita as being non-vedic but there is a contradiction of Lord Krishna telling Arjuna to fight in the Kurukshetra war and the Jain teachings of absolute non-violence. The Mahabharata was attributed to Sage Vyasa who as most of us know was not a Brahmin and whose mother was a lower-caste fisherwoman. Yet, he is regarded as one of the greatest sages.

There is another sect that believes in all those things you mentioned. They are called Arya Samaj and they believe only in the Vedas. It must seem strange to you that a sect can be based solely on the Vedas and believe in those values you mentioned.

Like I said, you need to learn to remain calm, control your anger and accept that not everyone believes you.

I do apologize if I came off as rude of angry. I do respect everyones belief. However, I still dis agree with you. You say Jains are bias, but someone can say the samething about Vedics as well. They were biased in their view as well.

You also say not to trust Arab sources which you may be correct but I will also not trust Brahminical sources as well because Brahmins have done a whole lot of lying as well. They make the most ellaborate claims such as the whole world began in India and all civilization comes from Vedas as well as many other things that I do not want to repeat as they are too embarrasing for me as a Hindu.

What does Vedic mean? All things that orignate from the Vedas. So my whole point is, India is filled with many different sects and many different books and for people to say it all came from the "Vedas" is not proven. A lot of the texts are contradicting and some are alligned against each other and for Hindus to say it's all Vedic are just following an age old Brahminical superiority custom, which is basically saying all civilization in India comes from them. I do not believe this to be true and neither does many others. You can have your view.

Please do not think I am disrespecting the Vedas or saying they are false. I am rather saying not everything within Hinduism as we know it today comes from the Vedas. I personally do not follow the Vedas, I follow the Gita and that is Lord Krishna's word. Everything I need for a spiritual life is contained within Gita and I need not turn to anything else for so called "higher knowledge". It comes directly from the Lord and he specifically made references to the Vedas and other scriptures preaching to drop all else and take refuge in his words.

As for the Bhakti Panths, yes you are correct. The Arya Samaji's did preach directly for the Vedas.However, my intention for mentioning the other sects was to tell you that they rejected the Vedas but praised other scriptures and they remained Hindu. My whole point was that defining Hinduism as Vedic cannot be proved to be true. Hinduism is just seen as Vedic because of the dominance of the Brahmin class. There is nothing wrong if you want to hold your view but you should also know that not everyon holds your view either.

God Bless

03-05-2007, 10:05 PM

Well now it looks like we're getting somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hindu28

However, I still dis agree with you. You say Jains are bias, but someone can say the samething about Vedics as well. They were biased in their view as well.

In my experience Jains do try to distance themselves from Hinduism by focusing on the differences rather than the similarities. I've also come across some who say that without them there would be no Buddhism, which I don't agree with since Buddha also had differences with the Jains. And yes, Vedics can be bias too. With Jains and Buddhist they've got their traditions which is well defined, I think because Hinduism is so vast it's much harder to define it.

Quote:

You also say not to trust Arab sources which you may be correct but I will also not trust Brahminical sources as well because Brahmins have done a whole lot of lying as well. They make the most ellaborate claims such as the whole world began in India and all civilization comes from Vedas as well as many other things that I do not want to repeat as they are too embarrasing for me as a Hindu.

Yes I agree, they do make some ridiculous claims especially that everything began in India and have their own ideas of being superior. It's a pity they are not living up to the high ideal they are supposed to.

Quote:

What does Vedic mean? All things that orignate from the Vedas. So my whole point is, India is filled with many different sects and many different books and for people to say it all came from the "Vedas" is not proven. A lot of the texts are contradicting and some are alligned against each other and for Hindus to say it's all Vedic are just following an age old Brahminical superiority custom, which is basically saying all civilization in India comes from them. I do not believe this to be true and neither does many others. You can have your view.

Vedic means part of the Vedic tradition. The Vedic tradition consist of the sruti and smriti scriptures. In the case of the Upanishads they are directly connected with the 4 Vedas being the end portion and accepted as sruti. I would also argue that they are the most popular and influential portion of the Vedas, with most of the rituals of the Samhitas and brahmanas being outdated, forgotten and just practiced by some Brahmins. The Upanishads go against rituals as it is represents an evolution of the Vedic religion from the outward ritual to the inner spirituality which is far more relevant today. Once you follow a path of spirituality you no longer need rituals.

Quote:

Please do not think I am disrespecting the Vedas or saying they are false. I am rather saying not everything within Hinduism as we know it today comes from the Vedas. I personally do not follow the Vedas, I follow the Gita and that is Lord Krishna's word. Everything I need for a spiritual life is contained within Gita and I need not turn to anything else for so called "higher knowledge".

The Vedas are respected because they are thought to be the origin of Hinduism, without the Vedas Hinduism wouldn't have developed further because unlike other religions Hinduism is a continuous tradition which is the main reason it has not died out unlike other ancient religions. Hardly any Hindu today follows the Vedas directly. The Gita is probably the most popular scripture. Most Hindus follow a school of Vedanta and a guru.
Lord Krishna also said what he is teaching is the essence of the Vedas and his teachings are purely Yogic and Vedantic.

Quote:

My whole point was that defining Hinduism as Vedic cannot be proved to be true. Hinduism is just seen as Vedic because of the dominance of the Brahmin class. There is nothing wrong if you want to hold your view but you should also know that not everyon holds your view either.

I understand what you're getting at. But I think in the scriptures that we know as "Hindu scriptures" there does seem to be a unity when it comes to the Vedas. Though they criticise they all seem to hold the Vedas in high regard, they all look back to the Vedas. There is controversy whether Tantra is part of Hinduism or not since they praise the Agamas and not the Vedas, yet they generally are accepted as Hindus.

sreeram · 03-10-2007, 04:49 AM

Hindu is not a religion. It is a way life that followed by the people who lived in the ffice:smarttags" />laceType w:st="on">valleylaceType> of laceName w:st="on">InduslaceName> ie Sindhu river. Sikh budha and jains are branches of these people and they can be considered as hindus. No need to go deep into what Swami Vivekanda told. He explained the same with some examples to understand to common people.

03-10-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sreeram

Sikh budha and jains are branches of these people and they can be considered as hindus.

Sikhs and Jains are indeed Indian people but of the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists I know, none of them want to be considered as Hindus and they have the right to distinguish themselves from Hinduism. What they don't like is when certain Hindus try to force them to call themselves Hindus, when they don't feel like Hindus and don't want to be. By doing this you are not respecting them as a faith community to exists as a religion in it's own right.
When people talk about Hinduism, we know what they are talking about and what is regarded as Hindu. No need to make something so simple into something so difficult. We know what makes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as seperate religions. Sure, we have similarities but also have dofferences.

03-10-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 2

Sikhs and Jains are indeed Indian people but of the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists I know, none of them want to be considered as Hindus and they have the right to distinguish themselves from Hinduism. What they don't like is when certain Hindus try to force them to call themselves Hindus, when they don't feel like Hindus and don't want to be. By doing this you are not respecting them as a faith community to exists as a religion in it's own right.
When people talk about Hinduism, we know what they are talking about and what is regarded as Hindu. No need to make something so simple into something so difficult. We know what makes Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as seperate religions. Sure, we have similarities but also have dofferences.

Actually no, when we talk about Hinduism we do not know what we are talking about. There are so many sects within Hinduism and very different from each other. Hinduism is nothing but a series of religions from ancient times clumped into one. Jains and Buddhist are not considered Hindu because they are Athiestic philosophies and Sikhism is a recent religion, when Sikhs formed the Khalsa Panth they asked for a seperate religion and Hindus refused to recognize them as a seperate religion eventually leading the two groups to have fueds with one another.

The same can be said about sects within Hinduism as well. They all can be considered seperate relgions, they just haven't asked for it on paper.

riih.qarojamahoamaan · 03-11-2007, 02:29 PM

Please Excuse My Ignorance And Explain:
What Kinds Of Tilaka Are There In India?
Are There Only Vaisnava Tilakas And Shaiva Tilakas, Or Are There Buddhist And Jaina And Sikh Tilakas As Well?
Can You Please Describe The Exact Shape, Colour And Material Of Each Kind Of Tilaka?
Thank You.
Also, Please Supply Some Statistics: What Percentage Of Indians Follow Each Religion.

03-11-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hindu30

Actually no, when we talk about Hinduism we do not know what we are talking about.

Maybe you don't, but I think I know what is meant by Hinduism and the sects or "religions" that are associated with it. I don't think it's so difficult even if these sects vary. Most Hindu societies across the world recognise what is known as Hinduism.

Quote:

Hinduism is nothing but a series of religions from ancient times clumped into one.

So which is the oldest and which is the newest? And if so are all the sects of Hinduism right in their claim of being the worlds oldest religion? As some sects are newer and others older. Are Vaishnavas older than Shaivites or vice-versa?

Quote:

Sikhism is a recent religion, when Sikhs formed the Khalsa Panth they asked for a seperate religion and Hindus refused to recognize them as a seperate religion eventually leading the two groups to have fueds with one another.

You can see why can't you. The fact that they wanted to be 'different' shows that even they knew what Hinduism was, so as to distinguish themselves from it. And 'Hindus' refused...that shows that the Hindus knew who they were.

Quote:

The same can be said about sects within Hinduism as well. They all can be considered seperate relgions, they just haven't asked for it on paper.

Can they? So are the different sects of Christianity seperate religions as they have different beliefs, rituals, etc? What is known as Hinduism shares common beliefs even through different traditions and schools of thought may disagree on interpretations.