[JonDopl]

It is common question among the learned people all over the world. The simple answer is yes I am an Hindu (this avoids further queries).
Sometimes you have to go deeper and then it becomes tricky.
Then you have explain that there is nothing really called Hinduism in the tradition of other prophet based religion, and name itself is a misnomer. There is no vedic authority for this name, more appropriate would be Sanatan Dharma.
Then question of explaining your religion in few words makes it very difficult.
I would like to hear from other learned people.

[Appeselve]

Yes, I am a Hindu. This would be easier to deal with all the hindu diaspora, than the specific varnas or varnAsrama. Because, we can easily achieve wider goals by the word Hindu or Sanatan Dharma.

Anyone called Hindu is going to believe in Vedas, else he is of different faith. Ex. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhs don't accept Vedas as authority. Once a Hindu, he is obliged to believe in the vedic authority.

As per vedas, all first 3 varnas are obliged to learn and practice vedas, but can limit themselves to their professions. Overtime, we all lost some or the other duties. So, we all hindus actually in the same boat. Due to limiting our professions to certain skills mostly learning, teaching, cooking etc, some of us could still practice vaidika karma. I pity those other hindus who couldn't continue their vaidika duties owing to changes in history.

So, also sudras/dalits of current times are interested to take part in such rituals and activities. When Hare Krishnas follow the Hindu tradition, with strict measures as per the Gita, anyone can take up such learning our scriptures their convenient way and follow. Those who cannot rigorously take up vegetarianism or concentrate, can still take part in Yoga, learn smritis like Puranas, Gita, slokas etc.

Those other varnas who were already eligible, can seriously look up lot of wonderful translations, commentaries in the web or through books. Overtime, they would develop conviction and interest. Such people should pursue the upanayam, gayathri japam etc., if not for them atleast for their kids. But, anyone can perform simple altar/archa worship and partake food only after such worship, which would slowly make them take their mind away from habits/addiction to un-vedic foods, past-times, adharmic qualities.

The basic laws of following our Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga can be used to address any kind of follower in Hinduism. So, everyone should become pro-active in taking their own responsibility to enhance their spiritual disciplines.
Those who are eligible or had acquired some basic knowledge and practice, should volunteer to help the others sections of Hindus, in sharing such knowledge, through part-time classes, temple discourses etc.

We all can enrich ourselves in making a community that has better self-values and disciplines. The dharma [without the aspects of religion] can also be shared with other faith sections of the society.

[Morageort]

It is common question among the learned people all over the world. The simple answer is yes I am an Hindu (this avoids further queries).
Sometimes you have to go deeper and then it becomes tricky.
Then you have explain that there is nothing really called Hinduism in the tradition of other prophet based religion, and name itself is a misnomer. There is no vedic authority for this name, more appropriate would be Sanatan Dharma.
Then question of explaining your religion in few words makes it very difficult.
I would like to hear from other learned people.

Dear Sri Rajprasad,

Yes, You are correct. My personal interpretation of the word Hindu is "any one born in this Country can claim to be a Hindu". The word Hindu was given to people living on the banks of Sindhu (River) by outsiders. The word Hindu was first used by Arab invaders and then went further west by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus. and the Persian term Hindū referring to all Indians. By the 13th century, Hindustan meaning the "land of Hindus"emerged as the name for this land.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan gives the following definition for Hinduism.

Hinduism is more a way of life than a form of thought. While it gives
absolute liberty in the world of thought, it enjoins a strict code of
practice. The theist and atheist, the skeptic and the agnostic may all
be Hindus.... Hinduism insists on a moral life and draws into
fellowship all who feel themselves bound to the claims which the moral
law or dharma makes upon them. (-S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View Of Life, 1926 )

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[quedry36]

There is no Vedic authority for the name Sanatana Dharma either. This was a term coined in the middle ages.

[TamreuddyRada]

As much as I have to identify myself as a Hindu for official purposes out here at the same time I really wonder is that identification really necessary?
Yes I believe in God..Vedas I look at it as a guide for life as it covers all aspects from daily living,fulfillment of worldly desire and right up to the Jnana aspect.

Sometimes I wonder even if the Astika and Nastika classification of believes are really needed in terms of acknowledging Vedas.
Most newer religions are just off shoots from the Upanishads and for centuries the foundation was layed well by the Vedic lifestlye..so it was not too hard to start preaching the Ultimate Truth for easy assimilation.

When we say Vedas everyone thinks of the Karmakhanda mainly and makes the Vedic lifestyle sound so ritualistic and people start to think that Vedas is too complicated and reserved for a privileged few when in fact its actually Universal in application.

So if you ask me "Am I a Hindu".
My true and sincere answer will be No.Why do I need a lable to realize God?
I am sure God gave us the Vedas for benefit of mankind and not to create sects and subsects.

[jacknates]

My personal interpretation of the word Hindu is "any one born in this Country can claim to be a Hindu". The word Hindu was given to people living on the banks of Sindhu (River) by outsiders. The word Hindu was first used by Arab invaders and then went further west by the Arabic term al-Hind referring to the land of the people who live across river Indus. and the Persian term Hindū referring to all Indians. By the 13th century, Hindustan meaning the "land of Hindus"emerged as the name for this land.

Dear Sri Brahmanyan
I am afraid your personal interpretation does not sound pragmatic to me. Reason is, even though persians coined the term hindu, when they did there were none other than vedic believers in this region. This is the reason why the same Turks and Mughals who established rule in Delhi never called themselves Hindu though they supposedly coined the term. They proudly claimed as ruling Hindusthan but never called themselves hindus. If it was just about sindh river, the moment they settled here they would have called themselves Hindus. Ofcourse everyone call themselves Indian because when Greek came in, they used 'I'ndus as river name and later Romans and europeans referred whole region as India. Ofcourse for persians, hindu refers to anyone living in India, but it didn't include the invaders but only the original inhabitants. If we go by your definition of Hindu, then anyone living far from Sindh river for generations will have to stop calling themselves Hindus, and so the hindus of non-indian races, lol.

As the other learned people mentioned and also the OP, I too think, believing in vedas and considering them as ultimate authority is the only criteria or eligibility for being a Hindu.

[wmtravelservice]

The first time the name Hindu occurs is at the time of the Persian King Darius the great (550 B.C). It is referred to as Hidush. The mountain range of Hindu Kush denoted the boundary of the Hindu people.

The Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang also gives a name which is the Chinese equivalent of Hindu.

The Arabs got the name from the Persians. The close connection between Persia and India dating back to the Vedic period has not been researched fully. The common factors of Ahura Mazda and our scriptures have been pointed out by some scholars.

The boundary of the Hindus was the Hindu Kush mountains and not the Sindhu river. Gandhara and Khamboja kingdoms were beyond the Sindhu river.

According to Nigel Allan, a historian, there were at least two meanings for "Hindu Kush" common centuries ago "mountains of India" and "sparkling snows of India" - he notes that the name is clearly applied from a Central Asian perspective. Others maintain that the name Hindu Kush is probably a corruption of Hindi-Kash or Hindi-Kesh, the boundary of Hind.

Sanatana Dharma is a word which was taken from a medieval copper plate. I have given the history of its origin in one of my posts. I could post again if members are interested. The word is Sanatana Dharma in Sanskrit. Not Sanatan dharma as it is said in Hindi.

[videolkif]

The term Hindus denoted a people and not a religion. Both Hindus and Buddhists and of course Jains. Bhuddhism was prevalent far beyond the Indus river. Bamian for example.

The places Hiuen Tsiang travelled through until he reached the borders of North India were Turfan (Kau-chang), Agni (O-ki-ni), Kuche (Kiuchi) an oasis in the Gobi desert, Nujkend (Nu-chin-kien), Chaf (Che-shi), Ferghanah (Fei-han in Turkestan), Sutrishna (Su-tu-Ii-sse-na), Samarkhand (Sa-mo-kien), Kesh (Ki-shwang-na), Kunduz (Hwo), Bhaktra or Bactria (Fo-ho-lo), Bamiyam (Fan-yen-na) and Kapisa (Kia-pi-she).

[trilochana.nejman]

As much as I have to identify myself as a Hindu for official purposes out here at the same time I really wonder is that identification really necessary?
Yes I believe in God..Vedas I look at it as a guide for life as it covers all aspects from daily living,fulfillment of worldly desire and right up to the Jnana aspect.

Sometimes I wonder even if the Astika and Nastika classification of believes are really needed in terms of acknowledging Vedas.
Most newer religions are just off shoots from the Upanishads and for centuries the foundation was layed well by the Vedic lifestlye..so it was not too hard to start preaching the Ultimate Truth for easy assimilation.

When we say Vedas everyone thinks of the Karmakhanda mainly and makes the Vedic lifestyle sound so ritualistic and people start to think that Vedas is too complicated and reserved for a privileged few when in fact its actually Universal in application.

So if you ask me "Am I a Hindu".
My true and sincere answer will be No.Why do I need a lable to realize God?
I am sure God gave us the Vedas for benefit of mankind and not to create sects and subsects.

Dear Dr. Renuka,

You said it. Wonderful thoughts. As a Student of Sanskrit you may know that the word "Vedas" means "Knowledge". Knowledge need not be limited to a particular dogma. It is my belief that I should live as a good human being first and last in this birth, and what ever helps me to show my path is welcome to me.
Spiritual approach to realize the unknown power is personal search,need not be labeled or confined to a particular path.It is beyond all the known paths.
"Truth is a pathless land" said Jiddu Krishnamurthy.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[Anatolii]

The name of the Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is Zed Avesta. Ahura Mazda is the Supreme God. Sorry for the mistake in my post.

[Unwiseevove]

The first time the name Hindu occurs is at the time of the Persian King Darius the great (550 B.C). It is referred to as Hidush. The mountain range of Hindu Kush denoted the boundary of the Hindu people.

The Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang also gives a name which is the Chinese equivalent of Hindu.

The Arabs got the name from the Persians. The close connection between Persia and India dating back to the Vedic period has not been researched fully. The common factors of Ahura Mazda and our scriptures have been pointed out by some scholars.

The boundary of the Hindus was the Hindu Kush mountains and not the Sindhu river. Gandhara and Khamboja kingdoms were beyond the Sindhu river.

According to Nigel Allan, a historian, there were at least two meanings for "Hindu Kush" common centuries ago "mountains of India" and "sparkling snows of India" - he notes that the name is clearly applied from a Central Asian perspective. Others maintain that the name Hindu Kush is probably a corruption of Hindi-Kash or Hindi-Kesh, the boundary of Hind.

Sanatana Dharma is a word which was taken from a medieval copper plate. I have given the history of its origin in one of my posts. I could post again if members are interested. The word is Sanatana Dharma in Sanskrit. Not Sanatan dharma as it is said in Hindi.

Great post, please do post about the origin of Sanatana Dharma.

[Farson]

So if you ask me "Am I a Hindu".
My true and sincere answer will be No.Why do I need a lable to realize God?
I am sure God gave us the Vedas for benefit of mankind and not to create sects and subsects.

I appreciate your understanding about the greatness of vedic wisdom. As you mentioned there are two things, Vedic scriptures are based on dharma but such dharma itself is God centred. Though Buddhists, Jains or carvakas etc have taken the dharmic essence of Vedas as the background of their philosophy, they simply rejected its authority on the Existence of Vedic Gods and even Brahman. In that case, any follower of ONLY dharma and NOT its Practices, should ascribe to either Buddhism or other eastern/Indian philosophy, and not Hinduism.

The moment you say Karma Yogi or Jnana Yogi, such karma and Jnana becomes rooted on the realization that our Individual Self is subservient to that Highest SuperSoul called Brahman/Vedic God. For Example, If someone says, I use the Jnana of Vedas and neither follow its Practices (Karman) nor believe in those gods, then they should become a Buddhist and follow its dharma purely based on meditation. Atleast we will then have definitive Set of Hindus, who are devoted to Vedic Understanding .

Such mis-interpretation of Vedic understanding on one's own terms, and not practising its basic tenets, becomes contagious and spoil the good-will of the devoted/religious hindus. I would call a religious dalit, my better hindu counterpart, than a Brahmin who is either a nonbeliever of Vedas or non-practitioner of vedic religion (atleast in its basics). I would partake prasAdam in a Hare Krishna Sudra devotee's house than in a Brahmins' who is simply arrogant and lacks humility to Vedic Gods. The one who has the devotion and conviction in Vedic Principles and Gods together is a Hindu. Period. By Hindu, everyone should be a Vedic believer, but they should eventually become a Vedic Practitioner!

Hinduism or Vedic Religion is not based upon headcount, but solely exists on its few faithful followers. So. Those who don't accept Vedic authority, even if they are Brahmins, should change their faith to other closest philosophies, and call themselves as 'Buddhist', 'Atheist' or 'Zist' and rid of their birth identities (Brahmin, Kshatriya etc..), so that they don't mislead other religious Hindus. Quite a lot of DK parties claimed themselves as Athiest, which was very helpful.

[scewDeasp]

Spiritual approach to realize the unknown power is personal search, need not be labeled or confined to a particular path. It is beyond all the known paths. "Truth is a pathless land" said Jiddu Krishnamurthy.

A failed approach. How?

'The knower of Brahman attains the Highest', 'Brahma vid ApnOti param'. - Yajur Veda. So, the only absolute path is 'Knowing that Brahman'.

Knowing that Supreme Power (Brahman) is not that simple, then according to this verse of Kato Upa 2-23,24,

"This Supreme Self is not attainable either through thinking or by meditation or by hearing. He is attainable by him, the individual, whom that Supreme Self chooses'.

"He who has not desisted from bad deeds, who is not peaceful, who is not self-recollected, who has not controlled his mind, cannot attain this Supreme Person, through knowledge."

So, We first have to enrich ourselves with Jnana/Knowledge, then practice them to discipline and recollect our self.

We haven't even come out of those TV, addicting foods, money-making rat-races (mind-control), we won't even spend few bucks for those spiritual books, how long will we take to be self-disciplined (doing nithya-karma), self-recollecting (reading philosophical inquiries) etc. With all these, Our own personal path of searching that unknown power, is just an empty jargon or a self-deceiving lie.

"His form does not stand for being perceived. No one can see Him with his eyes. He is attainable by the mind through devotion (Bhakti) and steadfastness. Those who know Him becomes immortal - Verse 6-9 Kata Upa

"That is not possible of attainment either by speech or by mind or by the eye. How can it be realised except from the word (Vedas) that teaches that it is. So, following Vedas is the only path. There is no other path , you can know Him other than through the Vedas. So, your (meaning anyone's) personal words or paths are not leading anywhere!

Knowledge need not be limited to a particular dogma. It is my belief that I should live as a good human being first and last in this birth, and

When Vedas/Sruti is the authority, it is so. It cannot be a dogma. Smritis, Puranas are as authoritative as the Sruti, until it contradicts Srutis. In then, Truth and Dharma are absolutes, anything that becomes relative should be considered a dogma or based on material/human nature. If your own belief is relative depending on your own mind/understanding, body and environment, how do you say your path is not dogma based on limited constraints? If we are not yogis or Rishis, we should stop assuming ourselves as great human beings, and accept we haven't followed guidelines and seek to obtain them.

what ever helps me to show my path is welcome to me We should go seek the Upanishadic Wisdom with the humble attitude, they won't serve the egoistic natures.

[Nubtoubrem]

5112 years back the eight avatara of lord vishnu namely lord krishna explained in detail and in depth abt dharma neethi.the ninth avatara is muddled with controversy with lord balaraman or lord buddha or lord jesus or lord muhammad or lord sai baba or.......... the list goes on.if one wants a parampara.brahman is what exists in all and everything and it is brahman.text help us in myriad ways.hymns help us .chants help us.bhajans help us.that which is helped by brahman is brahman.

[SusanSazzios]

If i have to escape the tyranny of book religions,i haven't got much choice rather than being a hindu.

[HunterM]

According to Nigel Allan, a historian, there were at least two meanings for "Hindu Kush" common centuries ago "mountains of India" and "sparkling snows of India" - he notes that the name is clearly applied from a Central Asian perspective. Others maintain that the name Hindu Kush is probably a corruption of Hindi-Kash or Hindi-Kesh, the boundary of Hind.

.

Dear Sri Nachinarkiniyan,

According to articles I have read "Hindu Kush" means "Hindu Slaughter" or "Killing of Hindus". This has been confirmed by a detailed account given in the following website:

Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

[Repwailia]

This is the interpretation which the Westerners have thrust on us. Both Muslims and the Hindus would like to believe that for their own reasons which are obvious. The name Hindu Kush existed even before Islam was born.

The Western historians were part and parcel of the Divide and Rule policy of the colonial British. They wanted to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims and twisted history. Their encyclopedias also served the same purpose.

Some of the present day Hindu historians and pseudo historians also would like to believe in such theories, because it serves their ends.

[plantBanceper]

There is no shred of evidence about the so called slaughter of Hindus. This is a fancy theory based on the interpretation of the meaning of the word Kush. No mention of any such event in any of the chronicles or even our own Puranas. Since the massacre was of mostly Bhuddhists (Bhuddhism was the major religion in these parts) we would expect the Chinese to mention it. During the Moslem invasion from Arabia, it was the Chinese who controlled this region.

This a figment of a very fertile imagination and a canard with a malicious intent.

[hapasaparaz]

This is the interpretation which the Westerners have thrust on us. The name Hindu Kush existed even before Islam was born.

The Western historians were part and parcel of the Divide and Rule policy of the colonial British. They wanted to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims and twisted history. Their encyclopedias also served the same purpose.

Some of the present day Hindu historians and pseudo historians also would like to believe in such theories, because it serves their ends.

I am not sure why westerners are to be blamed, when it was a muslim traveller who mentioned it in 1333AD as per encyclopedia. Here is what I found on this from that website, though I am going to try to find this research work from Nigel Allen.

"Encyclopedia Britannica (3) already informs us above about the resistance to conversion and frequent revolt against to the Moslem conqueror's rule from 8 th thru 11 th Century AD. The name 'Hindu Kush' itself tells us about the fate of the original residents of Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh during the later period of Moslem conquests, because HINDU KUSH in Persian MEANS HINDU SLAUGHTER (13) (as per Koenraad Elst in his book 'Ayodhya and After'). Let us look into what other standard references say about Hindu Kush.Persian-English dictionary (14) indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush is probably also related to the verb Koshtan meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing). Encyclopedia Americana comments on the Hindu Kush as follows: The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when (Hindu) SLAVES from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afgan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia (15). The National Geographic Article 'West of Khyber Pass' informs that 'Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - "Killer of Hindus"'(10). The World Book Encyclopedia informs that the name Kush, .. means Death ..(16). While Encyclopedia Britannica says 'The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afgan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)(2). However, later the Encyclopedia Britannica gives a negationist twist by adding that 'more likely the name is a corruption of Hindu-Koh meaning Hindu mountains'. This is unlikely, since the term Koh is used in its proper, uncorrupted form for the western portion of Hindu Kush, viz. Koh-i-Baba, for the region Swat Kohistan, and in the names of the three peaks of this range, viz. Koh-i-Langer, Koh-i-Bandakor, and Koh-i-Mondi. Thus to say that corruption of term Koh to Kush occurred only in case of Hindu Kush is merely an effort to fit in a deviant observation to a theory already proposed. In science, a theory is rejected if it does not agree with the observations, and not the other way around. Hence the latter negationist statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica must be rejected"

I am not convinced that Nigel Allen is a true well wisher of india and hindu historians are psedo, yet.

[aspinswramymn]

The name Hindu Kush has been given long before even Islam was born. It was the boundary of the Hindu area of influence before both Islam and Christianity was born.

Pliny mentions about Aseni and Asoi clans (Sakas) south of the Hindu Kush in his book about the tribes of India. Since Pliny lived around third century A.D, it is worthwhile to do a research whether he mentioned the name Hindu Kush.

The problem is that there has not been enough research done on this.

When I was talking about Hindu Kush mountains being the border I was talking about the Sakas, Kushans, Mouryas and others. That was the time of the Gandhara kingdom.

For me the history of Hinduism started 3500 years back and not with the advent of Islam. Both Sakhas and Kushans invaded India. so did the Greeks. Again the Huns invaded India and committed countless atrocities. Please read Raja Tharangini.