Your definition of Hinduism
Posted by Sheena Patel
Defining Hinduism has always proved a tricky subject, due to the spectacular diversity within the religion. Hinduism Today magazine is preparing a special issue and book on the subject: ‘What is Hinduism’? As part of this endeavour, they are inviting individuals to answer this question in their own words (click here for further details):
The following is an extract from an article I wrote a couple of years back. It pretty much summarises my definition of Hinduism:
“Hindus are a civilisation and Hinduism is a search for the truth of existence as developed by our civilisation, and the lifestyle, culture, philosophies, yoga (spiritual practices) that were built and are still being built around this central quest. Hinduism can’t be defined in terms of belief, as its foundation is a willingness to seek.”
Any comments/feedback are most welcome.
August 31st, 2006 at 8:50 am
First of all, we have to reject the Western idea about Hinduism that it has no origin, no central theme, millions of gods, no scriptures, no specific code of conducts. These are being repeated by a number of respectable Indians thus increasing the confusion. Hindutva people has created another kind of confusion by promoting a very crude, uneducated and politicalized version.
Hinduism as a religion is distinct from Hindu Philosophy and Hindu Myths and history of ancient India mixed with mythology as in Purana, Mahabharat and Ramayan.
Hinduism as religion was first described in the Vedas, revised in the Upanisads and further revised in the Bhagwat Gita. It was explained in simple terms by Swami Vivekananda and by complex terms by Sri Aurabindo. However, the essence of Hinduism is in Bhagwat Gita.
According to it, there is just one God, Brahman. There is no need for statues or temples, but pure work as a sacrifice is required. There are specific code of conduct described there. Greed, possiveness, lust are the three gates of hell. There is complete equality in the eyes of Krishna.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:51 am
According to the message of Krishna in ‘Bhagawat Gita’, this freedom can only be achieved by Karma yoga or selfless work and Gnana yoga or pure knowledge (Bhagawat Gita, Ch. 3, Verse 3; 1983). Karma yoga recommends working for the sake of the work itself, not for the fruits of the work. Work without pay, absence of attachment to the result, generally to the point of complete disregard for one’s personal interest, complete selflessness is the karma yoga. This is essentially opposite to the ‘utilitarianism’, which is the philosophy of ‘capitalism’.
Individualism, the ideal of Western culture, propagated by Capitalism and the ‘globalization’ process, does not correspond to the ideal view of life according to this universal law of nature. Thus, according to both Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo, fundamental ideas of Hinduism are the same as those of ‘Integral Humanism’, a system of non-capitalistic nature not devoid of God.
Greed, possessiveness, desires to create wealth are the virtues of capitalism but for Sri Krishna these are the gates of hell, enemies of the soul. Those who are attached to these are described by Sri Krishna as those “who hate me” (verse 18, chap 16, Bhagwat Gita). Thus Hinduism considers both social and economic inequality and the resultant arrogance as unacceptable.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Namaste Dipak. I don’t know what your second post has to do with the definition of Hinduism, there is probably a better place it could have gone.
But anyway, I have quite a few issues with what you’ve said. You say:
“According to the message of Krishna in ‘Bhagawat Gita’, this freedom can only be achieved by Karma yoga or selfless work and Gnana yoga or pure knowledge (Bhagawat Gita, Ch. 3, Verse 3; 1983).”
Other parts of Gita also say BHAKTI and SURENDER can lead to freedom. It is geneally not a good idea to quote one verse of the Gita that do not reflect its overall message.
As for your tirade against capitalism - that is all well and good, as long as it is acknowledged that socialism/communism has an even worse track record and is every bit unbalanced and devoid of dharmic principles as is capitalism. The reason why capitalism and (especially) communism are unbalanced is because they judge society only through economic criteria. Whereas any balanced approach will judge society in terms of kama, dharma and moksha as well as artha (economics).
September 5th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I have a friend who retired from teaching economics recently. As we discuss marxism, capitlism, and religion he came to me with the realization that hinduisms sociopolitical order is in modern terms libertarian. To a large extent I agree but for the idea that secular libertarianism is an expression of animalistic individualism whereas Hindu libertarianism is an expression of divine seeking advaistism (union with tat sat). Where one leads to do whatever you can to promote ego, the other leads to do what you should to transcend ego. (is this a partial definition of hinduism, then?)
It is neither capitalistis, communist, feudal, mercantile… or any of the other systems of rationalization that western economics have come up with to make ego glorification a moral good. I think this too is a very important lesson hinduism has to teach the world.
hariaum
September 6th, 2006 at 4:46 am
In Chapter3 of Bhagwat Gita Krishna said, “There are only two roads for perfection of the Soul”. These are Karma Yoga and Gnya Yoga. Howeber, as it may take several reincarnations to achieve perfections, one should also have devotion to supplement the shortcomings; however, that does not mean Karma Yoga and Gnaya Yoga are not needed. That is the basic mistake made by most of the Hindus. They think if they pay money to a temple or build a temple they are doing their duty. They are wrong. Only through pure work in Hinduism one can worship the God. There is no need for any temple of statues. Hinduism is basically a philosophy of Pure Work.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Reading what Mr Basu above has written, a number of things strike me…
“Hindutva people has created another kind of confusion by promoting a very crude, uneducated and politicalized version” …..could you kindly back up what you are saying by giving us all an example of this?
“Hinduism as a religion is distinct from Hindu Philosophy” - I don’t follow this statement either, how can this be possible? how about an example…
Then you start mixing Western-inspired political ideologies with Sanatan philosophy…….what prompted you to do this?
I quote you again….
“Individualism, the ideal of Western culture, propagated by Capitalism and the ‘globalization’ process, does not correspond to the ideal view of life according to this universal law of nature…….” individualism (read EGO) is a potential barrier to higher spiritual progress in all of us…I’d assert here that external material ideologies (such as Capitalism or Communism) dont provide answers to questions such as why ego should be dissolved or how that should be accomplished??
“Greed, possessiveness, desires to create wealth are the virtues of capitalism”……I’d say they are the trademark thoughts of the lower mind and again I don’t think that worldly material ideologies provide answers to these issues either……this is what I believe sets scriptures such as the Gita apart from mundane worldly ideologies…..
You speak very authoritatively, but have rarely backed up your assertions. I would not want to think you were pushing an agenda using the Gita as cover so..for the benefit of us all could you provide examples to the issues above, so we may follow your proposed insights into “what constitues your definition of Hinduism” rather than “Why Hindus should reject Capitalism” rants..
P.S - Lets also get clear that my reply wasn’t prompted by a desire to defend capitalism
“Greed, possessiveness, desires to create wealth are the virtues of capitalism…”
September 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Reference the question of defining Hinduism, some related thoughts from three authors:
Spiritual Renewal The Hindu Way
A three-part article - this page, the first part, has links to next two parts.
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/19960112.htm
Who Is A Hindu?
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah
Hinduism Primer
http://ramankhanna.voiceofdharma.com/articles/primer.htm
September 7th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Briefly my thoughts on what defines Hinduism…
I’d much prefer to use the term Sanatan Dharma then settle for a non-indigenous inspired “ism” which serves to fragment/contain a philosophy which in actuality is both universal in its application and contains numerous threads. Certain sects of Sikhs & Jains may also consider themselves as followers of Sanatan philosophy which helps in fostering much needed unity but allows for different sampradyas.
I’d say a follower of Sanatan Dharma:
1) Believes in a supreme divine entity (God, Paramatma, Nirankar etc…)
2) Believes in Karma
3) Believes in re-incarnation
4) Recognises that Moksha is the ultimate aim.
5) Revers the Vedas and other related scriptures
Thats my first attempt at it. Lets discuss. What could be added/deleted to this?