Monday, December 29, 2014

Is Hinduism Oldest Surviving Religion

This post came out as a result of the following question asked on Quora-
Is Hinduism the oldest surviving religion? If not, what was the religion documented in the Vedas and Puranas?

 For most of the people today it is difficult to digest that there can be a society without religion. But fact is before the Islamic rule people of this country did not even knew what is religion. There was a concept of "Dharma", which can roughly be translated as duty. there was Dharma of king (Rajdharma), Dharma of Son (Putradharma), Dharma of husband (Patidharma), Dharma of wife (Patnidharma), Dharma of teacher (Gurudharma) and so on..... Combination of all these Dharmas was known as Sanatan Dharma (Eternal Duties). So Dharma mentioned in Vedas is Sanatan Dharma and it has nothing to do with any religion. Vedic society was a society free from problem of religion. Puranas on other hand evolved slowly over the period of time and these have wide acceptance in native Indian society. But these mostly and I say "mostly" not "always" promotes Brahamanism. And it is from here society started going backwards, caste system evolved.

Problem is that religion was wrongly translated as Dharma in Hindi and today's generation educated in English is unable to go beyond this basic folly. 

So in a way Hinduism is oldest surviving belief system but not religion in true sense of word. And these system have always been flexible and ever evolving. Even today these are open to evolution and up-gradation as per the needs of the time. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, November 9, 2012

A dialogue on Hindu, Hinduism and Hindustan, India, Bharat


Arjun Jayasimha
Thursday via mobile
Dear Republicans, America isn't a land of Whites. Dear BJP, India isn't a land of Hindus.
Like · 
  • Chandrasekhar Subramanya India is also called Hindustan, just for fun.
  • Arjun Jayasimha It is Bharat for all official purposes...
    Thursday at 12:00pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Kartik Julka Wish we could assert: Dear Politicians, India isn't a land of Corrupt
  • Pradeep Kl Bharat name aslo was derived from Puranas(Story of King Bharat) which is a Hindu text . Just for fun.
  • Vageesh Vaidvan Arjun Jayasimha Who is Hindu? Anybody living in land of Hind is Hindu. India is just a corrupt version of Sind>Hind>Indi>India. Problem is many of our people are confused about our identity. As Pradeep said above even Bharat was also so called Hindu king (Only thing is that, at that time nobody knew the word Hindu). Concept of religion itself is central Asian and Europian concept. For us it was dharma not religion. Religion binds to to some particular ideologies but dharma encourages you to be responsible for your Karma. So anybody living in India/Hind/Hindustan is Hindu like anybody living in America is American or living in Europe is Europian or Living in China is Chinese. If you have any other explaination for word Hindu please enlighten us.
  • Vivek Yajaman Awesome folks : Chandrasekhar Subramanya &Pradeep Kl Great points :)
  • Pradeep Varun Rags Kartik Julka Do u really want to see a land of corruption free..... try to see how much corruption happens around you then we can think of big tickets
  • Pradeep Kl Thats correct. The root word is indeed Sindu which has its reference from Vedas.
  • Mohit Gidwani This thread surprisingly reeks of Hindu Nationalism - by all your arguments, everyone in Karnataka will be Kannada. Hindustan is just a name - defining identity by name has caused Indian politics to rely so heavily on casteism and religious identity. 

    Arjun - agree with you there wholeheartedly. India isn't a land of Hindus. It was never meant to be. Pakistan is the anti-thesis - it is and was meant to be a Muslim state.

    If everyone else here wants to be academic, I'll just point you guys to our constitution - #3 - right to religious freedom.

    In all practical contexts, "Hindu" is a religious identity. Please don't connect it to Hindustan.
  • Mohit Gidwani I wouldn't usually be bothered to comment, but some words here just made me want to throw up. Sorry about the rant.
  • Arjun Jayasimha Vageesh, even if I were to agree for a minute that everyone in India is Hindu (whether I agree or not, many scholars have agreed to ur definition), do u think people from other religions consider themselves Hindu? The point I was making was that India is as much Hindu (religiously) as America is White(racially)... It wasn't an apple to apple comparison in the sense that I meant it....
    Giddu, passionate comments r always appreciated :)
  • Varun Narayanan Dear Congress, secularism has one definition. It aint dynamic to suit your vote bank needs. And yea secularism isnt lip service to/ appeasement of the minorities nor is it being anti - Hindu. Take a stand on the Ram Setu for Gods sake. And hang Afzal Guru.

    The best governed states in India be it Gujarat, MP, Orissa or Bihar are all non - Congress states. Guess people arent falling for ure pseudo secular shit anymore.
  • Vageesh Vaidvan Arjun Jayasimha Problem with us is that we the people of India have lost our standards and started measuring ourselves in the scales designed by others. None of the people who supported the opening status and tried to point out limitation of my mistake, bothered to define Hindu. And they can not. And that is because Hindu is not religion. Dharma itself as used in Indian languages is not equivalent of religion. Our problem start when we look at the things through a prism of religion. We refuse to grow beyond religion. You know all the people commenting here are among 5% of the most previleged and educated people, even they refuse to go beyond religion. We are digging grave of our society by degrading Hindu to a religion, and we do not even know that. Since Hindu is such a broad based, tolerant, all encompassing concept so many of us choose easier root of degrading it to religion rather than trying to understand the enormity of it.
  • Vageesh Vaidvan Dear Varun, I agree people living in Gujarat are Gujaratis, in Kerala Malayalis and so on. But all these people bound together by common thread of shared past and culture are Hindus. Not because of their religion but because of their coherence, because of shared value, because of mutual respect and tolerance. What religion they follow and do not follow does not matter. If they worship Durga, Mary, Jesus, God, Brahma, Vishnu or somebody it does not matter till they do not discriminate on the basis that you read Geeta and I read Ramayan so that be source of enmity or reading Koran or Bible or Mahabharat or Purana. Till they respect each others Gods as much as theirs, they are Hindu. The day reading prefering Geeta over Ramayan or Prefering Ramayan over Koran, or prefering Koran over Bible make them enemy, then they are not Hindus.
  • Vageesh Vaidvan Religion has already divided this country once and if we fail to learn a lesson from that we might be divided again. Then there will be so many small nations fighting for what they themselves will not know exactly like Pakistan today do not know. Intolerance can not be the basis of any nation, only shared value can be. If our unity come for some purpose or value then it shall last but if it is just to oppose something that unity will also vanish as soon as common enemy will vanish. So in short Hindu is a person living in Hind/Indi/India/Bharat who is tolerant, who is above religious divide for the common good for all the people with whom his own good is involved.
  • Lavanya Krishnamurthy Hinduism is an ideology. Even if its considered a religion,I dont understand why its associated with intolerance and anti-secularism. If that was the case, i doubt people from other religions could live and thrive in India, like how they are doing now. I believe that hindus are the highly tolerant and broad-minded. If you do not agree, compare the state of hindus in pakistan to that of muslims in India!
    Your comparison is not apt here.
  • Chitranshu Mathur Perfectly agree with all the comments which say that Hinduism is more about tolerance and mutual respect etc and by that definition, everyone who upholds these values is Hindu. The problem, though, (and I think this is what Arjun Jayasimha was also hinting at) is when people try to force their own definitions down other people's throats. For example, an Indian who follows a different religion may listen to all these arguments, but may still want to only call himself Indian, and not Hindu. Fair enough... he/she is free to do so. And even within Hinduism, there are hundreds of different versions, stories, deities, beliefs and so on. If it is about tolerance, then we should be open to this diversity in beliefs within Hinduism (whether you call it a religion or a way of life or an ideology). But some people try to define Hinduism through one dominant story/deity/idea, and that is where problems begin.
  • Rohit Prakash Arjun Jayasimha Do you actually believe in that statement yourself in your heart of hearts or was it more to rake up a controversy?
  • Chitranshu Mathur Arjun Jayasimha always likes to rake up controversies. Case in point: his "notes" on relationships which he used to write a few months back. :D
  • Arjun Jayasimha Rohit, where does the question of ''heart of hearts'' arise? It's a fact that a majority of Whites voted for Romney and a majority of Hindus wud probably vote for BJP (bcoz Hindutva is 1 of their core philosophies)...
    And Matty, yes, I don't mind debate (euphemism for controversy)
    Thursday at 4:41pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Lavanya Krishnamurthy Arjun Jayasimha if majority of hindus voted for BJP, BJP would be in power! given that Hindus form the majority in this country :P
  • Arjun Jayasimha Not necessarily Lavanya. Say 80% of India is Hindus (by religion).... Even if a majority, say 60% of these, vote for BJP, 0.8*0.6=0.48 which isn't a majority overall....
    A similar calculation applies to Obama and Romney, where accurate figures are more handy... 60% of whites voted for Romney, but over 90% of Blacks voted for Obama... Not too different from how Lingayats back Yeddy and Vokkaligas back Sadananda....
    Thursday at 5:00pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Chitranshu Mathur Arjun Jayasimha The first part (majority of whites voted for Romney) may be true, but the second (majority of Hindus vote or would vote for BJP) is not. The difference may be because of India's many parties v/s US's two-party system, but the message in both places is that the broader and more inclusive your ideas are, the better your electoral chances.
  • Chitranshu Mathur Also, with 48% of votes in India, a party would probably sweep the Lok Sabha. e.g. in 1984, even with the post-Indira sympathy wave, Congress only got 49.01% votes but 404 seats out of 543. Which is why we should probably have proportional representation.
  • Arjun Jayasimha The numbers were back of the envelope... The point was to explain to Lavanya that a majority vote of a majority population need not yield a majority of the whole... And yes, I don't have data to support my claim that BJP wud win if only Hindus voted... I went on the premise that Hindutva resonates with both the BJP and Hindus (Hindus defined as per Vageesh)... In fact, the fact that the party believing in Hindutva isn't in power in the land of ''Hind'' is itself proof that Vageesh's definition is probably flawed....
  • Chitranshu Mathur Agree on the numbers bit. About the definition bit, I think there is a difference between Hindutva and Hinduism, and not being able to understand that is the reason why the BJP has never managed more than ~25% of the total votes in any LS election.
  • Arjun Jayasimha Matty, what is the difference between Hindutva and Hinduism (as defined by Vageesh)?
  • Chitranshu Mathur It is the difference between practicing and preaching, or to be more precise, what one says in front of a crowd of followers v/s what one says in an arguably civilized discussion on TV etc. To be fair to Vageesh, his definition was quite moderate, and one which would make it hard for sane people to argue against. If certain leaders were to stop at that and not demand that everyone agree with them, then there would be no trouble. But while professing a moderate and inclusive definition, if in practice those leaders draw a line between "us" and "them" and incite violence based on that, then people can see what the leaders actually mean. After all, actions speak louder than words.
  • Chitranshu Mathur Also, even in these "moderate" definitions, even if one takes religion out of the equation, the common fallacy is to assume that one's definition of "culture" and "nation" and "identity" is the same as everyone else's, and therefore, trying to impose it on others. Instead of that, if one were to actually practice a "live and let live" philosophy, things would not be so complicated.
  • Shamanth Hegde Hindutva is the way of life or a state of mind of the natives of India who share a common history and ancestry and to some extent common culture.
    Hindutva is a cultural and civilizational concept and not a political or religious dogma.
    But unfortunately today,use of word hindutva per se is depicted as an ideology which is hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion.
    RSS/BJP is often depicted as a communal force by leftist or those who are left of centre to suite their political needs.
    RSS never tells to wipe out other religions from India.It only says put your nation above everything else and do selfless service to motherland.
    On paper, ideology can be black and white.But in real life there are lot of grey areas.Politics deals with that grey area.So a political narrative of an ideology will be different from the one on paper.
  • Sanjay Bhat While Pakistan is being controlled by radical Muslims, India is being ruled by pseudo-secularists playing vote-bank politics... sad to see the cradle of the Indus valley civilization (Sindhu-Saraswathi valley) currently in Pakistan being used for state sponsored terrorism against India... what an irony!!!
  • Aditya Padaki Well Arjun, while your summary is that India should not be divided religiously, accusing only BJP is not a fair deal :P. ALL political parties use the emotions of the people to polarise them and use it to their advantage - the British did divide and rule, no different than any political party now. NO party is truly secular, they are just opportunistic dogs... 

    If ALL political parties put their foot down and stop polarising people using the highest of their emotions - the religion, and rather concentrate on what they are actually supposed to do - country development, there will be lot lesser religious tensions...
  • Aditya Padaki And regarding the tolerance of Hindu Dharma, I am going to quote from none less than the Gita here, which is the pinnacle of great tolerance, generosity and impartiality towards faiths, which forms a strong basis of the Sanatana Dharma...

    यो यो यां यां तनुं भक्तः श्रद्धयार्चितुं इच्छति |
    तस्य तस्याचलाम् श्रद्धां तमेव विधाम्यहम् || 
    - श्रीमद् भगवद् गीता 

    Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship, with faith, I make his faith steady in those forms itself, so that he can immensely devote himself in that worship, for I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. 
    - Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita
  • Kartik Julka Wonder anyone will next express some anomaly in the ubiquitously used phrase 'Jai Hind'!
  • Kartik Julka On a serious note, though I agree with a lot of things said by some people here, but I would like to reiterate two things: 1.) One is right when one tries to imply that a lot of misguided and ignorant Indians adopt an extremist and rigid view of Hinduism; so do several power-greedy and manipulative politicians/ 'godmen'. Not only do they hurt the fabric of our society but they also dent the core essence of the concept of Hinduism. 2.) Concept of Hinduism is as flexible as it possibly can be. Further it needs neither propaganda nor selling; not even a reassuring adoption by others. It simply embraces you no matter what religion you practice; no matter whether you are a 'believer' or not - Hinduism absorbs you by practicing a simple 'Live and Let Live'. This is how it is meant to be. Beyond that, what we have made it out to be is nothing but a manifestation of some ignorant and some other 'motivated' minds.
  • Rohit Prakash Being a faithful follower of Subramanyam Swamy you say this...I don't believe your statement resonates your sentiments...Its more for your euphemism of spurring debates! So you believe Congress is awesome and doing a great job of keeping the country united through its "Non Corrupt" motives? Ha Ha...Funny!
  • Rohit Prakash Only in democratic countries you see so much hullabaloo about "I don't believe in Hinduism"...I believe in being secular and so on and so forth..Lets go to communist countries and speak the same tone and try to change the fundamental principles and culture that a society is built on which dates back to thousands of years and see what happens! Generally any land that has a majority of a certain type of people through evolution and time will want to preserve their identity through their principles, culture and belief systems which will automatically point in the direction of following ideologies pertaining to a particular religion since we humans have encapsulated identity, principles, values and culture into one single notion - "Religion"
    If the world was flat and had no boundaries or divisions in people, religious identities among others and we considered every single living thing or being as equals then this problem will not even arise in the first place...But that is not possible considering that no matter what happens people will classify and divide because "EGO"has to factor in anything and everything!
  • Varun Narayanan Arjun - Your definition of 'majority' seems off the mark. 1 or 2% of vote swing can completely swing the seat share. 

    The BJP does not win because the so called 'liberal, secular' Hindu votes for the Congress who can only be in power until the poor stay poor and until the minority is perpetually kept in fear of the majority.

    Hindus invited Jews with open arms when they were being persecuted elsewhere. I dont think we need lessons from these so called secular forces on secularism.
  • Vageesh Vaidvan Hi Guys, I missed the best part of debate. But anyways Chitranshu Mathur have articulated what I wanted to say better than me. Aditya Padaki has quoted the essence of hinduism. As for understanding the difference between Hindutva and Hinduism we can refer to works of Sawarkar, but out education and so called liberal media had maligned that fellow to the extent that even if somebody talk of him, he is supposed to be a fanatic without looking at his writing and is expected to go with herd mentality without applying his/her own intellect. It is time that we the people of India have a closer look and understand what is it that binds us together. It is not religion it is some deeper bond that we are together. Religion has only divided. Moreover for reasonable people religion actually do not matter, because even if they deeply believe in God, they understand that there is only one God. So lack of knowledge is another problem. Even in ancient time there was concept of Shastrartha wherein one could put forward his point of view rather than saying that only I am right or only my way is right. As for definition part I tried to do my best but I ma incapable in fact this is something so broad I doubt one can define. Moreover in olden days they need not try to define it as they never imagined people can fight in name of religion. They only knew Dharma no religion.
  • Chitranshu Mathur Arjun Jayasimha must be laughing his head off. A simple comment by him has sparked such a long debate/discussion/argument/controversy/whatever-other-euphemism-one-may-want-to-use. 
    Just wanted to add a few points here, as I saw several comments implyin    g that we do not need lessons from others since we have a history of tolerance and diversity in Hinduism. 
    On the contrary, learning from others and being open to others' beliefs is the only way one can continue to survive and thrive. If we agree that we have been tolerant and open-minded in the past, then we need to be so even now, and not shut off our minds just because we think we do not need to learn from others. 
    Secondly, if we are proud that we have been open to Jews, Parsis or others who may have been persecuted elsewhere, and these migrants/refugees settled in India for good, then that disproves the theory that there is a single culture etc which everyone in India has adhered to or should adhere to. At best, there may be some basic principles which we all agree on, but extending them to one's religious or cultural identity and insisting that everyone shares exactly the same identity defeats the whole notion of being tolerant and open-minded in the first place.
    22 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Varun Narayanan Agreed but we have people like Mulayam who just go with the wind, preaching secularism, which is a joke. There have been more than 7 riots since Akhilesh came to power, how many people know abt this?

    These charlatans preaching what they cant practice,     and just to play divisive politics at that is what I am against. 

    And Mulayam is one example of the entire brigade out there to win that 'bloc vote' and it is these guys I am not willing to learn from.

    Stop treating minorities as a vote bank, respect their aspirations.
    22 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 2
  • Kartik Julka Well... to the extent I understood the flow of this discussion, the consensus that we all have been arriving at is that it is this basic tenet/ virtue/ principle of tolerance, acceptance and absorption that lends a common cultural thread to all the various faiths that have found space in India. That is the foundation of the erstwhile Indus Valley Civilization which has evolved over the ages into the India we know; and these ages have seen assimilation of several different faiths and people into this culture. In the process we have not only realized, that all the different faiths preach basically the same thing but we have also given ourselves the flexibility to pick practices and styles from all the newer people coming in. We also having given ourselves the flexibility to allow various faiths to evolve from within folds of Hinduism. So we need the contemporary Hindus to broaden their horizon beyond the religion they have come to understand and internalize this entire phenomenon as Hinduism and take pride in it. Meanwhile, others may or may not call it Hinduism; it is just not intended to impose names or rules or practices upon anybody. So, when we insist that we all share the same identity, it just means that the basic and prominent principles that find priority in our daily discourse are essentially the same: tolerance, diversity, acceptance, evolution of thought, and learning from everyone. This common identity may be left unnamed, may be called Indianness; and those too rigid upon insisting upon their Hindu roots would do well to understand this and thereby go get a life and chill out!
    22 hours ago · Like · 2
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)