Hello everybody

[amit19 0]

I somewhat stumbled onto this half believing that it was just another politically inspired forum but to my suprise people acutally seem to be quite educated on religion. My first question to you all is what is your definition of "Hinduism"? After studying this question, I have come to the conclusion that the word "hinduism" doesn not stand for any one belief and therefore it is dangerously ambiguous. There is no mention of the word "hindu" in any of the vedic scriptures and it has no link to sanskrit so what does it mean and what is this word's purpose?

[maadhav 0]

<< what is your definition of "Hinduism"? >>

 

the above impies you have your definition.

so, please share it.

 

the question also implies that every one has hsi owun definition. this also means it has no definite meaning.

 

then the questions arise:

 

- whose definition would you accept as true?

 

- whose definition would india, most indians, other major countries, and leading personalities in every field in the world would consider as true? let us try to answer this logically.

 

the word hinduism has come from the word hindu.

that word hindu was first defined by the muslims invaders.

to them hindu means the people living on the east side of river sindhu river. they pronounced sindhu as hindu.

 

now, all the people living east of sindhu were sanatana dharmis or varnasramis. therefore, hinduism means sanatana dharma. in another words, hinduism is a new name of sanatana dharma.

 

now if hinduism is a new name of sanatana dharma, then sanatana dharma is already defined in gita and the vedic literature.

 

if your name is amit, then only you are the authority to say to teh world what your name means.

 

similarly if you/we are hindus, then only we have the authority to tell the world what the word hindu means.

and the corret meaning of the word hindu then is "one who follows hinduism or sanatana dharma".

 

we hindus understand that sanatan dharma is given by god to mankind. dharma is not manmade. we hindus do not accept a manmade dharma.

 

now, almost all the non hindus of the world will have different concepts as to what a hindu is. but their concept does not count, because they are not the authority to define what hinduism is. we are. to depend upon others to define what we are is dangerous. just because their conceptr of hindu or hinduism is different from what we know, we need not dump the names hindu and hinduism. if we dump the name today and accept some ther names like, say hare krishnas, they will assume diferent meaning to that names also. this implies we do not asssert our selves what we are. we should not allow other to assert what we are and what hinduism is. we on the other hand should assert what hindu means and what hinduism means.

 

it is unfortunate that once ramkrishna mission also said they are not hindus, and prabhupada said he is not a hindu, and he said he is not preaching hinduism when he actually prached a major branch of hinduism called vaishnavism.

 

how to explain this?

one thought is that the world 'hinduism' means something very bad and bizzar in most non hindus' minds. therefore, in order to not repell them or to get political advantage, they dumped the word hind and hinduism. but by doing so, hteyhurt th feelings of a billion hindus. just as a mother is hurt when her son says, "i am not your son," a hindu feesl hurt when another hindu spreads hinduism and says he is not a hindu.

 

it is obvious that a new name cannot be in the old scriptures.

 

[Guest guest]

one thought is that the world 'hinduism' means something very bad and bizzar in most non hindus' minds. therefore, in order to not repell them or to get political advantage, they dumped the word hind and hinduism. but by doing so, hteyhurt th feelings of a billion hindus. just as a mother is hurt when her son says, "i am not your son," a hindu feesl hurt when another hindu spreads hinduism and says he is not a hindu.

•••wich kind of exponent of sanatana dharma you are? are you criticizing the sanatana dharma masters? if sanatana dharma is hinduism you are not a hindu even if you are born in india.. gita says "tad viddhi pranipatena..." otherwise you are out from any religion, even hinduism

[Guest guest]

<< are you criticizing the sanatana dharma masters? >>

 

no. i tell the truth as i know.

my guru has not forbidden me to tell the truth as i know.

 

[amit19 0]

I believe that hinduism is just another "ism" which is by definition man made. The best definition of hindu is exactly what you have stated, "people living on the east side of the sindu river". Such a definition is inherently geographical and "racial". I have given up the title of "hindu" because such titles are exactly what the vedic scripture teach us to abandon. I am not a hindu, i am not indian, i'm not white, i'm not mexican, i'm not catholic, i'm not muslim, i am a soul. This is the true teachings of the bhagavad gita. The fact that Prabhupada stated he is not a hindu only serves to show us how wise he was.

[maadhav 0]

<< I am not a hindu, i am not indian, i'm not white, i'm not mexican, i'm not catholic, i'm not muslim, i am a soul. >>

 

it does not save you from the aggressor ideologies.

they will always identify you as a hindu if you are a hindu.

now, yes, most hindu sknow their real identity is that they are souls. but this understanding has to be give to the invaded ideology followers, not to the hindus.

 

foxes are killing the chickens, and a chicken is telling other chickens that they are not chickens but souls.

what differenfce it makes to the foxes?

 

why not tell the fox that he is not a fox but a soul and make him non aggresive?

 

i have made my point. but it is up to the reader to get it or not get it.