• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Difference between Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma?

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"hinduism" is not necessarily vedik, although the majority of hindu religionS draw authority from the vedas. .. since there are so many different sects of hinduism, one persons opinion, what they think is right, or is "true" or whatever is 100% irrelevant.
i find biased know-it-alls annoying.
Nice post, Goblin. But do you see the conflict between your two sentences. In the first, you say 'Hindu religions', in the second you say 'Hindu sects'. So which is true? Actually, people fail to realize that Hinduism is 'unabashedly' structured that way. The difference is that other religions do not accept sects within their religion. Sunnis have fought with Shias, Catholics have fought with protestants, Hinduism accepts sects happily. Hindus delight in inter-sectoral discussions, as we do in this forum. Therefore, Hinduism should not be termed as a group of religions.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I too do not know when Sanatana Dharma was first mentioned, but probably later than Hinduism. That doesn't mean that the scriptures don't refer to the actual religion as eternal (Sanatana), just that the name Sanatana Dharma itself was never used to describe the religion.
 

तत्त्वप्रह्व

स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
So what is the difference between Sanatan Dharma and other Hindu schools of thoughts and if Hinduism is a term for Indo-Aryan/Indo-Persian religions then Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are technically Hindus no?
Both "hindu" and "sanātana dharma" are not terms officially found in the vedas. For the dharma followed by vaidikas it is simply vaidika dharma, and as said by @Aupmanyav above the term sanātana is more of an adjective indicating the eternality of vaidika dharma. Hindu is more of geo-socio-cultural term applied to people residing on this of river sindhu by persians and later by the arabs. The brits formalized this by forming laws during the colonial era, which is being mindlessly followed to this date. From a social point of view, despite Supreme Court's ruling that Hindus are those who accept the Vedas, there are a significant number of people who haven't a clue about it or don't bother much even if they do, for all of their practices derive from familial traditions. At one time sikhs, buddhists etc were indeed classified as Hindus, but with the reverse-concretization of the term to the exclusivity of accepting Vedas, they were, understandably, forced to distinguish themselves. All vaidikas (those who follow the vedas as ultimate) are hindus, but not all hindus are vaidikas.

Also, isn't Shirdi Sai Baba an avatar of Vishnu? Although he was a Muslim and partook in Namaz so do not know why Hindus revere him more than Muslims
No. Hindus are free to follow anyone they wish to. Vaidikas, who are knowledgeable, would not follow sai babas or the likes.
Rama ate meat, Buddha ate meat,
So what? Both were kṣatriyas, only brahmaṇas were forbidden from consumption of meat.
What is the difference between Sanatan Dharma and 'Hinduism' as Arya Samaj does not want to be a part of Sanatan Dharma but still follows the Vedas. If Hindu is a collective term then surely Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism are Hindus if Hinduism never existed before the term was coined/counts as different religions. Unless Hinduism is defined by what follows Vedas then the latter religions are rightly not Hindu
Dharma is the key word, and as of now, statutorily Hindus are those follow Vedas, but this is far from actual practice.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
 

Goblin

Sorcerer
Nice post, Goblin. But do you see the conflict between your two sentences. In the first, you say 'Hindu religions', in the second you say 'Hindu sects'. So which is true? Actually, people fail to realize that Hinduism is 'unabashedly' structured that way. The difference is that other religions do not accept sects within their religion. Sunnis have fought with Shias, Catholics have fought with protestants, Hinduism accepts sects happily. Hindus delight in inter-sectoral discussions, as we do in this forum. Therefore, Hinduism should not be termed as a group of religions.

true... fair enough. always a pleasure hearing what you have to say
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
From a social point of view, despite Supreme Court's ruling that Hindus are those who accept the Vedas, ..
Unfortunately, the judges of the court were not historians and the person they were asked to consult (by Indira Gandhi, chief of the Swaminarayans) was himself not a Hindu. So, there is not much to say about the Supreme Court observation. They did not consider than more than half the Hindus may not have heard the names of Vedas. Hinduism is more than just the Vedas. The Supreme Court judges exceeded their brief. However, they did it under compulsion, they were asked to give their view, though it was not really their territory.
No. Hindus are free to follow anyone they wish to.
No, IMHO Hindus too have their limitations. They cannot follow a charlatan who claims to be Brahman if he does not accept that everything is Brahman.
Dharma is the key word, and as of now, statutorily Hindus are those follow Vedas, but this is far from actual practice.
That creates problems. Should I follow Purusha Sukta or Nasadiya Sukta?
 
Last edited:

तत्त्वप्रह्व

स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
They did not consider than more than half the Hindus may not have heard the names of Vedas. Hinduism is more than just the Vedas.

No, IMHO Hindus too have their limitations. They cannot follow a charlatan who claims to be Brahman if he does not accept that everything is Brahman.
As usual you are taking both sides Aup ji :) Brahman is a vaidika concept, and if hinduism is more than just vedas, a charlatan too can be an a-vaidika hindu. Don't we have many following Nityananda even considered a Mahamaṇdaleśvar (not sure if they've repealed that now), would his followers be non-hindus? If so on what basis? If you say because it goes against the tenets of vaidika schools, then you are accepting that Hinduism is but entirely derived from Vedas.
Note: I'm not saying only vaidikas are hindus, nor am i saying all hindus are vaidikas.
That creates problems. Should I follow Purusha Sukta or Nasadiya Sukta?
If you are asking, you should follow both - they are mutually consistent - svadhayā tadekaṁ is the same as etāvānasya mahimā is the same as kasmai devāya. Wouldn't create problems unless of course you choose silly Sāyaṇa/Griffith/Wilson translations.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
...just that the name Sanatana Dharma itself was never used to describe the religion.

That is exactly my point. Now you too are delusional - in the eyes of Kalyan :)

Wouldn't create problems unless of course you choose silly Sāyaṇa/Griffith/Wilson translations.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।

Just so I am clear, are you saying Sayana was silly or that he was OK and it is the English translations that are silly?
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. if hinduism is more than just vedas, a charlatan too can be an a-vaidika hindu. Don't we have many following Nityananda even considered a Mahamaṇdaleśvar (not sure if they've repealed that now), would his followers be non-hindus? If so on what basis? If you say because it goes against the tenets of vaidika schools, .. Note: I'm not saying only vaidikas are hindus, nor am i saying all hindus are vaidikas.

svadhayā tadekaṁ is the same as etāvānasya mahimā
A charlatan cannot be a Hindu because he/she (Radhe maa) will not be following 'dharma' which is a pre-condition to Hinduism. The followers of such person can be simple-hearted, ignorant Hindus. I do not know what goes with Vedas and what goes against it, because I find all sort of views in Vedas. At the end of the paragraph you have yourself explained the situation. :) I wonder why should you say so? Kindly excuse my ignorance of Samskrit. I do not understand the two words, 'Svadhaya tadekam' and 'Etavanasya Mahima'. I also have not followed the word 'idaṁtvihavaktavyam'. It will be kind of you to help me understand the meanings.
 
Last edited:

तत्त्वप्रह्व

स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
Just so I am clear, are you saying Sayana was silly or that he was OK and it is the English translations that are silly?
Not Sāyaṇa (or even Mueller/Wilson/Griffith/etc for that matter). Sāyaṇa doesn't claim that his commentary is the only possible interpretation. For the most part his work mediocre {see commentary on many well known and continuously practiced sūktas like śatarudra, puruṣa, etc}, though not totally wrong. Most of the English translations acknowledge Sāyaṇa and follow it, wherever it meets their intent, but portray their work as if it is an authentic translation. But it is when these translations - which flout basic grammatical rules at many places - are used by others as the only possible unbiased interpretation, and theses are formed based on these in the name or scholarship, that the full extent of silliness manifests.

A charlatan cannot be a Hindu because he/she (Radhe maa) will not be following 'dharma' which is a pre-condition to Hinduism. The followers of such person can be simple-hearted, ignorant Hindus.
The question is what is criteria for ascertaining whether one is a charlatan or not? Dharma simply means ~practical philosophy that can be imbibed by a person~ dhāraṇa yogya.

I do not know what goes with Vedas and what goes against it, because I find all sort of views in Vedas
Which is why the ancients established prerequisite qualifications to study and interpret Vedas.

Kindly excuse my ignorance of Samskrit. I do not understand the two words, 'Svadhaya tadekam' and 'Etavanasya Mahima'. I also have not followed the word 'idaṁtvihavaktavyam'. It will be kind of you to help me understand the meanings.
Crux of the matter is all the sūktas are mutually consistent and have to be understood not in isolation. If you think you find them inconsistent, but are open to learning the methodology to understand them, you can send me message, though we will have to start with saṃskṛtaṁ basics :)

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
For the most part his work is mediocre {see commentary on many well known and continuously practiced sūktas like śatarudra, puruṣa,etc}, though not totally wrong. Most of the English translations acknowledge Sāyaṇa and follow it, wherever it meets their intent, but portray their work as if it is an authentic translation.
Understanding Vedas is not an easy job. Though you will not agree, but they were written in a different locale by a different people in a different language. Even prior to Yaska (700 BC), Aupamanyava had his explanation of why Lord Vishnu is mentioned as ‘Shipi-vishta’.

“In the RigVeda (VII, 100, 6), Vishnu is represented as having a bad name, viz., ‘shipivishta’. Thus the poet says, “O Vishnu! What was there to be blamed in thee when thou declared ‘I am shipivishta’?” Yâska records (Nir. V, 7-9) an old tradition that according to Aupamanyava, Vishnu has two names Shipivishta and Vishnu, of which the former has a bad sense (kutsitârthîyam); and then quotes the aforesaid verse which he explains in two ways. The first of these two interpretations accords with that of Aupamanyava; and shipivishta is there explained by Yâska, to mean “shepah iva nirveshtitah’’, or “enveloped like the private parts,” or “with rays obscured” (apratipanna-rashmih).”
“Arctic Home in Vedas”, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, page 307-9.

किम इत ते विष्णो परिचक्ष्यम भूत प्रयद ववक्षे शिपिविष्टो अस्मि l
मा वर्पो अस्मद अप गूह एतद यद अन्यरूपः समिथे बभूथ ll
kim ita te viṣṇo paricakṣyam bhūta prayada vavakṣe śipiviṣṭo asmi l
mā varpo asmad apa ghūha etad yad anyarūpaḥ samithe babhūtha ll
What was there to be blamed in thee, O Viṣṇu, when thou declare, I am Sipivista?
Hide not this form from us, nor keep it secret, since thou did wear another shape in battle.

Sayana and the other acharyas commenting on Vedas have an even greater time and place difference with the Vedic people. Only unbiased modern scholarly research (like that of Lokmanya Tilak) can surmount these difficulties, but many people are not interested in that.
The question is what is criteria for ascertaining whether one is a charlatan or not? Dharma simply means - practical philosophy that can be imbibed by a person - dhāraṇa yogya.
Yes, ‘dharma’ simply means that in all Indian religions – what should be done against what should not be done (adharma).
Which is why the ancients established prerequisite qualifications to study and interpret Vedas.
That is really commendable. But many chauvinist Hindus are not unbiased, a condition that was considered essential for serious study and understanding.
Crux of the matter is all the sūktas are mutually consistent and have to be understood not in isolation. If you think you find them inconsistent, ..
The crux of the matter is that Vedic richas written by thousands of people over a period of thousands of years in many different locales, are not consistent. One invites a hundred Gods and Goddesses for feasts, including those verses which say that they have roasted a bull and that the aroma must be reaching the Gods, and others where they say it all began with Hiranyagarbha.

I won’t trouble you for Sanskrit lessons. I am a retired person with lots of time on my hands, but you must have many other responsibilities. However, I will be grateful if you send me a few lines on the meaning of 'Svadhaya tadekam', 'Etavanasya Mahima' and 'idaṁtvihavaktavyam'.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Got to 'Svadhaya tadekam'. 'That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.' 'Breathed by its own nature', interesting observation. I noticed it but did not pay attention to the Sanskrit words. But it was breathless. Not something like a living being. The poet has not yet reached to the point where he questions existence and non-existence. That will come two verses later (Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent). Something like energy, breathless but still alive, with power. And there was no other thing. Nicely expressed. I do not know how anyone can put it as poetically as this more than 3,000 years ago. This person, Prajapati Parameshthin, (my homage to him), evidently was a genius of thought.

Found 'Etavanasya Mahima' also but that is not my view. I am less impressed by 'Purusha Sukta'. So, now only one word remains, 'idaṁtvihavaktavyam'. Is there a spelling mistake in this word. Google does not give me any answer.
- Found the answer by parsing 'iha vaktavyam' - 'idam tv iha vaktavyam iti'. Now I will study this.
Vrttikāramatam dūsyati – idam tv iti / (Ratnaprabhā), svamataparigrahārtham ekadesimatam dūsyati – idam tv ihā vaktavyam iti / (Bhāmati)

Details on page 64 of the book 'A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2' by Hejime Nakamura. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uxlviMaCPFAC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq="iha+vaktavyam"&source=bl&ots=GWyc6QibCA&sig=fAJDAwIMsAh50YE3HYI-dlYakbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIm-6ty7C4yAIViqZyCh0jfQFL#v=onepage&q="iha vaktavyam"&f=false

"It is not by any means a correction of the sutras. He is not at all touching the sutras. All he is doing is to criticize the view of the vṛttikāra. The words 'idam tu iha vaktavyam' [this, however, has to be said here] is the sentence where Shankara says he is differing from the view he has already presented. That is what is taken by the commentators as pointed out by me. If anyone says that Shankara has corrected the sutras, he is fundamentally wrong. Shankara never does that here. None can succeed in proving that Shankara has corrected the sutras. In one or two other places Shankara has alluded to an already existing reading of a sutra as two, by splitting it, as an alternative reading and explained. That is not in this adhikarana. Even in those cases, Shankara first takes the available reading and then alludes to the alternative reading and explains it that way too. Even there it is not a case of Shankara correcting any sutra. He will be the last person to do that.

It is implied that he is stating the traditional position on the sutras, with which he later disagrees. Here Sankara is clearly deviating from the traditional commentaries on the sutras as Hacker rightly observed.

Shankara has criticized earlier advaitins in the BSB and elsewhere. That does not amount to his deviating from a tradition. For, no one knows that they were traditions. Any idea of them is had only from Shankara's words when he states their position and shows how they do not convey the correct upanishadic position. So Hacker's observation is baseless and without knowing the tradition's view on these matters. "
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/science-religion-philosophy/SXXR_odFnrI[226-250]
Post by K. Laxminarayana of 7/11/14

Is having a different view a problem?
 
Last edited:

तत्त्वप्रह्व

स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
The first of these two interpretations accords with that of Aupamanyava; and shipivishta is there explained by Yâska, to mean “shepah iva nirveshtitah’’, or “enveloped like the private parts,” or “with rays obscured” (apratipanna-rashmih).”
Simply means one who is very secret, as in guhyatamaṃ, see BG, guhya meaning secret btw is also used in saṁskṛtam to mean private parts. So Yāska only clarifies there is no scope for kutsitārtha.
Only unbiased modern scholarly research (like that of Lokmanya Tilak) can surmount these difficulties
Well Aup ji, Tilak expressedly states his indebtedness to Mueller who has explicitly stated his object and intent of (mis)translating the Vedas to undermine their importance - regretted by himself later, though followed by no actual action, so Tilak's unbiasedness and scholarship to extent of usage of Mueller's works, goes straight out of the window.
But many chauvinist Hindus are not unbiased
Most translations derive from Sāyaṇa's works, hence chauvinism is already inbuilt into non-hindu "scholarly" works as well.
The crux of the matter is that Vedic richas written by thousands of people over a period of thousands of years in many different locales, are not consistent. One invites a hundred Gods and Goddesses for feasts, including those verses which say that they have roasted a bull and that the aroma must be reaching the Gods, and others where they say it all began with Hiranyagarbha.
Nice hypothesis, Donnigers and their ilk might appreciate your efforts in propagating their ideologies.
Got to 'Svadhaya tadekam'. 'That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.' 'Breathed by its own nature', interesting observation. I noticed it but did not pay attention to the Sanskrit words.
That creates problems. Should I follow Purusha Sukta or Nasadiya Sukta?
For someone quoting nāsadīya so often, its a wonder it took you such a long time to get to it. :) to be belied by the translation, if "apart from it was nothing whatsoever" why tama āsīt and yadāsīt (from) that which existed tapaḥ and coming to
thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent
adhyakṣa should make it clear enough that it is not kinship but the Lordship over both. The use of words yadi vā and yadi vā na, for anyone with knowledge of saṁskṛtam, indicates logical exegesis - which of course is characteristic of vaidika approach of first claiming truth and then substantiating with reason. The last few verses reason out the adhyakṣatva of the one who is referred to as svadhayā tadekaṁ in the beginning (so the ṛṣi allegedly reaching the dilemma or surmising mere kinship is ruled out). Enjoy it as a poem however you want, but other surmises are meaningless for it goes against the śruti itself.
Found 'Etavanasya Mahima' also but that is not my view. I am less impressed by 'Purusha Sukta'.
Doesn't make it any less valid.
Is having a different view a problem?
Good work on that, though the author's attempt at justifying it shows that there is significant room for reading it as subverting the message of sūtras, also see sūtrāṇi tvevam vyākheyāni. Not to forget the preceding adhyāsa bhāṣya.

Also iṣṭhasiddhi is an advaita classic, not jain at all.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Simply means one who is very secret, as in guhyatamaṃ, see BG, guhya meaning secret btw is also used in saṁskṛtam to mean private parts. So Yāska only clarifies there is no scope for kutsitārtha.
More from Tilak on 'Shipivishta':

"It is inferred by some scholars from this passage that the meaning of the word shipivishta had already become uncertain in the days of Yâska; but I do not think it probable, for even in later literature shipivishta is an opprobrious appellation meaning either “one whose hair has fallen off,” or “one who is afflicted with an incurable skin disease.” The exact nature of the affliction may be uncertain; but there can be no doubt that shipivishta has a bad meaning even in later Sanskrit literature. But in days when the origin of this phrase, as applied to Vishnu, was forgotten, theologians and scholars naturally tried to divest the phrase of its opprobrious import by proposing alternative meanings; and Yâska was probably the first Nairukta to formulate a good meaning for shipivishta by suggesting that shipi may be taken to mean “rays.” That is why the passage from the Mahâbhârata (Shânti-Parvan, Chap. 342, vv. 69-71), quoted by Muir, tells us that Yâska was the first to apply the epithet to Vishnu; and it is unreasonable to infer from it, as Muir has done, that the writer of the Mahâbhârata “was not a particularly good Vedic scholar.”

In the Taittirîya Samhitâ, we are told that Vishnu was worshipped as Shipivishta (II, 2, 12, 4 and 5), and that shipi means cattle or pashavah (II, 5, 5, 2; Tân. Br. XVIII, 16, 26). Shipivishta is thus explained as a laudatory appellation by taking shipi equal to “cattle,” “sacrifice” or “rays.” But these etymological devices have failed to invest the word with a good sense in Sanskrit literature; and this fact by itself is sufficient to show that the word shipivishta originally was, and has always been, a term of reproach indicating some bodily affliction, though the nature of it was not exactly known. The theological scholars, it is true, have tried to explain the word in a different sense; but this is due to their unwillingness to give opprobrious names to their gods, rather than to any uncertainty about the real meaning of the word. It was thus that the word shipivishta, which is originally a bad name (kutsitârthiyam) according to Aupamanyava, was converted into a. mysterious (guhya) name for the deity.

But this transition of meaning is confined only to the theological literature, and did not pass over into the non-theological works, for the obvious reason that in ordinary language the bad meaning of the word was sufficiently familiar to the people. There can, therefore, be little doubt that, in VII, 100, 5 and 6, shipivishta is used in a bad sense as, stated by Aupamanyava. These verses have been translated by Muir as follows: “I, a devoted worshipper, who know the sacred rites, today celebrate this thy name shipivishta, I, who am weak, laud thee who are strong and dwell beyond this lower world (kshayantam asya rajasah parâke). What, Vishnu, hast thou to blame, that thou declare, ‘I am Shipivishta. Do not conceal from us this form (varpas) since thou did assume another shape in the battle.” The phrase “dwelling in the lower world” (rajasah parâke), or “beyond this world,” furnishes us with a clue to the real meaning of the passage. It was in the nether world that Vishnu bore this bad name.

And what was the bad name after all? Shipivishta, or “enveloped like shepa,” meaning that his rays were obscured, or that he was temporarily concealed in a dark cover. The poet, therefore, asks Vishnu not to be ashamed of the epithet, because, says he, the form indicated by the bad name is only temporarily assumed, as a dark armor, for the purpose of fighting with the Asuras, and as it was no longer needed, Vishnu is invoked to reveal his true form (varpas) to the worshipper. That is the real meaning of the verses quoted above, and in spite of the attempt of Yâska and other scholars to convert the bad name of Vishnu into a good one by the help of etymological speculations, it is plain that shipivishta was a bad name, and that it signified the dark outer appearance of Vishnu in his fight with the demons in the nether world. If the sun is called brihach-chhepas when moving in regions above the horizon, he can be very well described as shipivishta or enveloped like shepa, “when moving in the nether world” and there is hardly anything therein of which the deity or his worshippers should be ashamed."
Well Aup ji, Tilak expressedly states his indebtedness to Mueller who has explicitly stated his object and intent of (mis)translating the Vedas to undermine their importance - regretted by himself later ..
Don't be so harsh on Max Mueller. Even Dhundhakari and Ajamil were pardoned by Lord Vishnu. The important thing is that he repented. Let the modern scholars right his wrongs. :D
Nice hypothesis, Donnigers and their ilk might appreciate your efforts in propagating their ideologies.
Don't blame me for what is written in RigVeda.

त्रि यच छता महिषाणाम अघो मास त्रि सरांसि मघवा सोम्यापाः l
कारं न विश्वे अह्वन्त देवा भरम इन्द्राय यद अहिं जघान ll
trī yac chatā mahiṣāṇām agho māsa trī sarāṃsi maghavā somyāpāḥ l
kāraṃ na viśve ahvanta devā bharama indrāya yad ahiṃ jaghāna ll
When thou had eaten three hundred buffaloes' flesh, and drunk, as Maghavan, three lakes of Soma,
All the Gods raised as it were a shout of triumph to Indra praise because he slew the Dragon.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv05029.htm

Actually I do not see any problem in this. The Aryans, when they were outside India were beef-eaters. When they settled in India where cows were respected, they changed their tradition and went along with the indigenous tradition of the majority. They also took up worship of Rama, Krishna, Shiva and Durga, who are non-Vedic deities, in preference to the worship of Indra, Agni and Soma. Like we say 'if in Rome, do as Romans do'.
Doesn't make it any less valid.
Oh yes, it does not. What I was trying to say is that Purusha Sukta for me is a 'klishta' hymn. I have not been able to get into the mind of the writer. :D
 
Last edited:

Treks

Well-Known Member
If Sri M or whoever is following sai baba and there in i understand why you are ao inclined on backing baba, then sri m is a charlatan...Sikhs fail in realizing the original truth because they run after their gurus without realizing the supremeSri Krushna.


As I sais earlier no vaidika guru or student who studied vedas or vedic scriptures(Brahmins only should read Vedam) would like to not get associated with term 'hindu'..instead referred as 'Vaidikas'.

Oh my, I've never heard that one before.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
Namaste,

I think Many those who call them self Hindu practice Dharmah in some way or another, and many more would agree on the different Dharmahs that are ever present, I think Gautama Sidharta had a idea of What Sanatana Dharmah means when he said:

"Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano."

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a Dharmah Sanatana.

Dhanyavad
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
So where does Arya Samaj and ISKCON fit in because I see that Arya Samaj Hinduism is separate from Sanatan Dharma Hinduism. ISKCON are apparently a resurgence of Bengali Vishnuvaiites but for some reason don't like being called Hindus. My experience with ISKCON is that the behaviour during ratha-yatra is extreme e.g. pushing and shoving each other for prasad and breaking it up in the struggle for it
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
They do not need to fit somewhere. They have their own way. So what you think of rath-yatra does not matter to them. If they identify themselves as Hindus, that is OK. If they don't, then also it is OK.
 
Top