Who is a Hindu?

[KashifAsrar]

An editorial in ToI dated 18th June 2007.
Kashif

SOTTO VOCE

Who is a Hindu? ​

Rohit Viswanath

Whenever our family visited our native place in Kerala, we never missed a chance to visit the famous Sri Krishna temple of Guruvayur. Being a religious family, it was a trip that everyone looked forward to. The hours of waiting and the serpentine queues leading to the temple never demoralised us. And as we approached the entrance to the temple, it was impossible to miss the forceful board at the gates, which proclaimed, ‘Non-Hindus not allowed’. As a little child, i innocently asked my mother, “Who is a Hindu?” She only brushed my question aside and gave some vague answers. She said, “Those who believed in the supremacy of the Vedas are Hindus”. I wasn’t convinced. I asked her, “Is Krishna of Guruvayur a Hindu?” And she retorted, “How can you be so ridiculous. Of course, he is a Hindu!” And when i asked her if he ever claimed so in the Bhagavad Gita, she did not have any answer. That incident only left me confused regarding my own religious identity. When my grandmother told me stories from the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas, i would disturb her time and again with my doubts. I would stop her and ask if any of the characters in them claimed to be Hindus. Being devoutly religious, she had immense faith in Rama and Krishna. My doubts would make her extremely wild and she would abruptly stop the story and walk away muttering something angrily. After a long while she would shout from the other room, “How dare you question the genuineness of my Gods. You will surely face their wrath”.
My doubts were not cleared until i entered the 6th standard. It was then that i learnt at school how the early migrants had settled on the banks of the great Sindhu. And how since the Persians did not have the consonant ‘Ha’ in their language, these people of the Sindhu, became Hindus for the Persians. And finally Hindu became Indus further west, from which the name India is derived. But did this knowledge really clear my doubts? Perhaps not. Hindus are actually those who live on the banks of the Indus. Since India was partitioned, the Indus mostly flows through Pakistan. By this virtue, aren’t the people of Pakistan those that have better claim to be Hindus? The temple authorities strangely haven’t perhaps reflected on this. They might take note of this history and put up a suitably different injunction outside the temple gates.

 

[Adux]

maybe Samudra can answer this, He knows religion and I know M TV...lol
Anyways the only Hindu's allowed sydrome has to be changed if you want Hinduism to grow, such as the ISKCON Movement, which has a lot of people from all religions converting into Hinduism.

 

[Adux]

So I am not a Hindu, Some persians gave me that Name......Good chance of it being true...

 

[niaz]

As a student student of history, I can safely say that most of what is said by Rohit Viswanath is correct.

Hindu also means black in the Persiasn language and Hindustan literally means land of the blacks. Hindu Kush mountains means killer of blacks, implying that there are no dark coloured people north of the Hindu Kush range. Additionally Indus has been the border between India and the rest. When Raja Man Singh was appointed governor of Kabul by Akbar, he hesitated crossing the river Indus. To this day we call that point as Attock, meaning stop. Think that early Aryan were light skinned and they coined the name of Hindu to the native Indians who were of darker skinned. To me all the stories of the Dev Indra defeating and killing the demons refer to destruction of the Dravidians by the invading Aryans.

Aryans brought their own Gods with them. To this date one finds parallels of the lion riding Durga with the Greek godesses Athena and Diana. However Ayrans were very few in number and India, the great melting pot that she is, absorbed them thoroughly. Even now there is gradual darkening of skin colour as one travels East and South from Punjab indicating increasing mixture of the Dravidian Blood. I think the caste system was an attempt to keep the races apart. Aryans were really the Khashatri and Brahmans. Vaisha probably of mixed race and the rest native Dravidians. In a country of a few millions with Aryans numbering only in thousands this could never succeed. The caste system remained but inter racial mixing went on.

In my opinion, first thing must be the person himself. According to my research ( admittedly with a bias) Hindu religion is not one maslak such as Buddhism or Islam but a mixture of Aryan and Dravidain beliefs. Thats why different places different Gods have prominence. Vedak Dharam is probably a better name. Sages and Rishsis developed an ingenuous method of absorbing other deities in the pantheon as 'Avtars'. Also, over the years, importance of Gods have changed. For example Mahadev or Shiva is not mentioned in the Vedas instead a minor God is known as Rudra. Religious Scholars have devised many names for Shiva such as Shankar, Bhola Nath etc. probably to absorb different local tribes worshipping different gods into the main stream Hinduism. Also they have assimilated Budha as one of the Avtars. Even Jains are now considered as part of the greater Hindu Religion.

I repeat my assertion that if you say you are a Hindu then you are one. I have no reason to doubt it, only God knows what is really in your heart. As a general rule a Hindu would probably believe in Triad of Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma and also in reincarnation. Whether you actually go to temple or perform puja is of no consequence. It is no different from a Muslim. Our creed involves belief in Allah, his angels, his books, his prophets, on the day of judgement and life after death. If as a muslim, I dont pray 5 times a day, it only makes me a bad muslim but I remain muslim nonetheless.

Finally I must repeat that I am no religious scholar; the above interpretation is my own view with a strong historical perspective and I dont claim it to be correct and no disrespect is intended to anyone's faith or belief.

 

[Adux]

An excellent post as usual and as expected of you sir,

Just one bone of contention though

Hindu Kush mountain is not only named for its natural barrier or wall, but it is known to be a place where muslim invaders murdered 100 thousand Hindu's. Thus the name.

 

[KashifAsrar]

Excellent post niaz sahab. It really gave a different insight, to me.
Adux can you please give some link about your statement. Hindu kush mountains always mentioned in history at diffrent times.
Kashif

 

[Samudra]

Hinduism has amidst itself believers and followers of monotheism, polytheism and even atheism.

How do you define and delimit a so called religion that has no supreme authority whatsoever?

The Veda's themselves declare they are not supreme.

We differ in our ways of perceptions of God. Some of us don't even believe in God. Some of us, like me for instance, only know that we do not know.

But there are about six major philosophies that originated in the sub-continent

Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samhkya, Yoga, Mimamsa's and Vedanta.

A Hindu would normally have some belief in any aspect of any of these six schools of thoughts without himself knowing it.

Fools see Hindu's worshipping idols and think thats Hinduism. The wise see the philosophies and become Sufis!

You could exhaust a life time and yet not fully understand the richness of these philosophies. It took me a full month to fully understand what was said in one little, infact the smallest, Upanishad. All of 16 verses. I quit reading religion after that.

Hinduism cannot be narrowly defined as you do with other religions - because it is not a religion.

The priests at Guruvayur can go to hell for all I care. They're becoming increasingly irrelevant these days and it's only a matter of time before these caste based institutions are washed away from the face of this sub-continent.

However, the caste system deeply ingrained into the rural society in the sub-continent is a great threat. It's falling too, I wish it fell a little more faster though.

 

[Samudra]

http://www.theuniversalwisdom.org/hinduism/paper-on-hinduism-vivekananda/

A great read I promise.

 

[thorosius]

Some on the other side do have knowledge. Enlightening post by Samudra.

One Question though: Are you saying that sufis draw their practices and teachings from these philosophies?

 

[Samudra]

Are you saying that sufis draw their practices and teachings from these philosophies?

I must have said 'spiritual persons'.

But its all the same. Some of the poems of Sufi's I've read have ideas very similar to the Hindu philosopies.I wish I had my collection of poems...i lost it when I came to UK.

If there is any lover in the world, 0 Muslim, it is I.
If there is any believer, infidel, or Christian hermit, it is I.

The wine, the cup-bearer, the musician, the instrument and the music,
The beloved, the candle, the liquor and the inebriation, it is I.

The seventy-two religious sects in the world
Do not really exist;
I swear by God every religious sect-it is I.

Earth, air, water and fire: do you know what they are?
Earth, air, water and fire-and the soul as well; it is I

Truth and falsehood, good and evil, pleasure and suffering, beginning and end,
Knowledge, learning, asceticism, devotion and faith-it is I.

Be assured that the fire of hell and its flames,
Paradise, Eden and the angels of heaven-it is I.
Heaven and earth and all they hold: angels, demons, and men - it is I.

- Sufi saint Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)

To my eyes it looks like Rumi has realised non-duality. What is non-duality ? The Hindu philosophy of Advaita, which is part of Vedanta.

Advaita can be expressed in one Sanskrit word : ekamevaditiyam.
It is the ONE without a second.

Sufi ideas and Advaita Vedanta were essentially the same...with different sugar coating to avoid the swords of the Muslim Kings/Mullahs.

 

[Samudra]

Jalal al-Din Rumi (d.1273): “Though the many ways [diverse religions] are various, the goal is one. Do you not see there are many roads to the Kaaba?”

Muhammad al-Harraq (d. 1845): “Seekest thou Laila [Divine Reality], when she is manifest within thee? Thou deemest her to be other, but she is not other than thou.”51

Another Sufi saint, Mahmud Shabistari, in his work Gulshan-i Raz (The Mystic Rose Garden) concurs, declaring, “..what is mosque, what is synagogue, what is fire temple? ... ‘I’ and ‘You’ are the Hades veil between them.. When this veil is lifted up from before you, there remains not the bond of sects and creeds.”

Read : Sufism: The Mystical Side of Islam

The fundamentalists and mullahs have sought to defame Sufism. Sufism is the spiritual side of Islam. Infact it is the one aspect of Islam which will not lead to any conflict with whomsoever in the world. With Sufism, Muslims and Kaffirs can get along very well.

In my opinion, Islam without Sufism would be a religion without spiritual aspects. Follow the rules, get the reward. I dont like that.

 

[Contrarian]

The answer to the title of this thread is....um.....ME!!

 

[Srirangan]

Actually the word 'hindu' is derived from the Avestan word for Sindhu (Indus river). Sindhu is Avestan became 'Hind'. Btw Avestan is the precursor for Persian/Farsi and was extremely similar to Sanskrit like all Proto Indo European languages are.

Contrary to niaz's conclusions; it has nothing to do with "blacks" or skin color or ethnicity in general. It was at most a geographic term, which the English education (aka indoctrination) system adopted and thus now has become the defacto term being used incorrectly.

--

Niaz, I read the part where you posted about Dev Indra killing "black" Dravidians. That is uneducated to fight the least. Dev Indra fought with "Asuras". Interestingly the Zorastrian god was called 'Ahura' Mazda. Just as Sindh became Hind, Ahura became Asura. So you deduction that "dev indra" killed blacks is as ill informed.

The Aryan invasion theory is a big myth in itself. Just because a 19th century German historian wrote it doesn't mean it has much merit to it. While different ethnicities have existed in the Subcontinent, the only invasions recorded in history were the Greeks, Huns, Arabs and Mongols (Turks to a lesser extent).

So where does the factual backing for 'Aryan Invasion' come from is still a mystery.

Being 'Aryan' or as it is scientifically termed 'Indo-European' is not a racial grouping but rather a linguistic group. So get over the race obsession!

 

[niaz]

Hon Srirangan,

There is no denying the fact that Indo -Iranian languages are closely related and Hind may have been drived from Sindh. However, in Farsi language Hindu is synoymous with black. One of the most famous couplet from Hafiz says

" Agar aan turk e Shirazi be dast aarad dil-e ma raa

ba khale - hindu -ash baksham Samaqand - o- Bukhara raa"

Meaning that if that Shirazi beauty makes my heart happy (basically agree to what I desire)

I will give away the cities of Samarqand and Bukhara on the black beauty spot on her cheek"

I strongly dispute your theory about mixing Ahramuzda with Assuriya. My reason is that there is a time difference between the time of the Prophet Zorastar and the Aryan invasions.
Most people blieve that Zorastar was born around 650 BC. Aryans started migrating around 2000 BC and and probably arrived in India circa 1500 BC. Vedic period is supposed to be circa 1200 B.C to 1500. Thus Vedas are describing event that occurred 1000 years before Zorastar.

Even if we assume the most modern date of the compilation of the Rig Ved, it is around 600 B.C. About the same time that Zorastar was born. It is therefore very unlikely that stories of Dev Inder destroying Asuras refer to the followers of Ahramazda. On the other hand there was a flourishing Indus Valley civilization at that time as evidenced from Harappa and Mohenjodaro in Pakiskan. This was destroyed by whom??. I would say that it is logical to conclude that there must also have been other cities along the path of the Aryans which were defeated and destroyed and mentiond in the Vedas as victories over Asuras. Land of the Asuras could refer to South as "Down" and not literally under the Earth.

Your assertion that Aryan invasion is a myth is also incorrect. You are comparing it with
the invasions of Greeks, Huns , Arabs and Mongols. Firstly, Aryan invasion was not like the Greeks, of say 40 to 50 thousand soldiers marching to fight pitched battles. Aryan invasion was in trible groups may be only a couple thousand strong and appearing all of a sudden at a city ( cities were more like overgrown villages at that time) overwhelming it and settling there. After another 50 to 60 years another band comes along and throws earlier ones out, the uprooted ones moving on further East/South and so on, the process lasted at least 300 years.

Secondly, even the Greek invasion is a 1000 years after the Aryans and earlier invasions
became part of the folklore rather than recorded history. Besides, earlier myths describe all foreigners coming in from the North West as Yavanas. There is even a story about Yavanas in the Krishan's life where he had to trick their leader to enter a cave to be killed ( Thats how his name as "Ran Chore' came about). Who were these Yavanas since actual Yunaanis or Yavanas (Greeks) were only living in huts at Krishans time ??

Hon Srirangan, you are however free to dispute my point of view, I never claim to be infallable!! and I love to learn new facts/theories. In my view the living is nothing but a long process of acquiring knowledge.

 

[joey]

Number 1, The article is very loosely written with no intellectual thoughts.

Number 2, Niaz this is very very complex thing to analyze and talk about Philosophy of Vedanta or Advaita Vedanta for that matter, What I can tell you Hinduism as a name is new concept, in the sense of its name. The 'ism' has been incorporated to keep it as a religion, It is better known as Sanatan Dharma. There are quite jumber of assertions that can be made from the name how it derived Hinduism, but proper assertion will be still Sanatana-Dharma.

There is mention about the same in some books as well, like The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita,

Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

Niaz, The Aryan invasion theory as niaz your saying is total wrong but here are my short view on the same, Aryans existed beyond India that is for sure, but they didnt invaded India as it is being said, When river Saraswati dried up a group of peoples moved in the banks of Ganges from Indus, assimilated with new philosophies wrote new books as in upanishads which are more refined than Vedas.

There were several parallel groups of peoples present in India at that time. From Genetics to discoveries of Archeology has proved it however lets not go there it will lenghthen the discussion hugely; On Genetics If you recall Kivisild was second author in the infamous Bamshad study of indian caste populations which had forcefed AIT once but then after the new study he has made a U turn and puted up what actually happened, however if someone says Aryans existed only in India thats a myth, Aryans are a race while what happened in India is a civilization formation which is a part of one race.

I quote Sir.John Marshall, in his book Mohenja-dara and Indus Valley Civilisation, vol-1 Page vi-viii says:

"Taken as a whole, the Indus Valley people's religion is so Charesteristicaly Indian as hardly to be distinguished from still surviving Hinduism....
One thing that stands out both at Mohenjadara and Harappa is that the Civilisation hitherto revealed at these two places is not an incipent civilisation, but one already age-old and sterotyped on Indian soil, wit many millennia of human Endeavour behind it."

Now please note that Hindusthan or Hindu is not from Sindu river, but "the Landmass between Himalyas and Indu Maga Samudram" and this place is Hindustan and people are Hindus and the book of ESTHER of Old Testament calls India as Hodu a minor variation of Hindu.

The vedas say nothing about Aryans or Dravidians and they do not mention anything about foreign invaders as well.

The topic is about Who is a Hindu, then I say the author is mxing up lots of things, in simple terms a Hindu is one who is follower of Sanatana Dharma.
In Sanskrit Arya is used to 'Give Respect'.

It is to be noted that Dravidian gene is present among Aryans in the whole subcontinent, and even Dravidians are not the Tribal peoples who existed in India and still does in many places (I used the term Aryan and Dravidian Gene to simplyfy things but in reality they shoulds not be termed as Dravidian and or Aryan gene as such), My friend Vishnu Som a editor of NDTV travelled in Andaman with Indian Navy after Tsunami, and you know there is a tribe in there called as 'Shompel' Tribe and they are one of worlds oldest living tribes! They are neither Dravidians nor Aryans.

I'll tell you a starking thing, If you know the language of 'Baloch' peoples and see the similarity it has with Tamil, it is quite starking.

You spoke about Durga riding the lion, apparently Being a Bengali it is biggest festival in Calcutta, i.e. Durga Puja, the concept behind it is far from anything Greek, She is among the mythology as goddess but the way she is worshipped is different conept altogather.

Finally Who is a Hindu? the one who worships Ram or Lakhshman? no its wrong, Hinduism is a way of life as you have very correctly put, creation-destruction-preservation and belief in re-incaration, even if I dont believe in these three I cannot be dubbed as a non-hindu.

It is merely a philosophy with elements of Dharma, but one thing is for sure any Hindu should and believes in the Hindu Cosmos.

I'll put up a nice piece of extract here later, and oh Krishna was Black and not Blue and his kingdom was Dwarka whose ruins has been found under the sea by Archeological Society of India.


----------------------------------------

Sri I dont agree much with you on the Zoroaster theory, it is known that Persians called us Hapta Hindu from Sapta Sindu.