Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
My position: My argument is that the term 'Hinduism' is meaningless. It is a fallacious term that does not describe a single comprehensive religion, in the way Buddhism describes the religion founded by the Buddha and has central doctrines like the 4 noble truths, or Christianity describes the religion founded by Jesus Christ and is based on the authority of the bible and the central doctrine of Jesus Christ, the son of god, dying to redeem humanity or Islam the religion founded by the Prophet Mohammed, based on the authority of the Quran and the central doctrine that Allah is the only one true god worthy of worship and the Prophet Mohammed is his last and final prophet. I can form generally a good idea if somebody I meet describes themselves as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Jew on what they believe and practice.
But if somebody describes themselves as 'Hindu' I am none the wiser. They can be anything from atheist, monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, henotheist, animist, ancestor worshipers, naturalist, shamanist, dualist, non-dualist, qualified non-dualist, oness and difference, Vaishnavist, Shaktist, Shiavism, Smartist, yogic/tantrik, RHP, LHP, Ganesha worshipers, Hanuman worshipers, Sun worshipers, Cow, Snake and Rat worshipers, river or tree worshipers or worshipers of 330 million other gods!
I mean lets face it the term 'Hinduism' is a bad term created by the British attempting to classify the religious thought and diverse traditions and philosophies of an entire subcontinent under one monolithic label, simply because they accepted the authority of the Vedas as their founders. But that is like lumping all Abrahamic religions together like Islam, Christianity and Judaism and creating a religion called "Abrahamism" simply because they accept the authority of Abraham as their founder. If tomorrow such a religion was coined, I can bet you a million dollars Christians, Muslims and Jews would cry foul and demand they be treated as separate religions.
In like manner Vaishnavism, Shiavism, Shaktism have all the features of a separate religion. They worship a different deity as supreme, they have a different canon of scriptures, different beliefs, myths and rituals. Historically, they have never got on with each other, more so true with Vaishnavism and Shiviaism. Vaishnavism denigrates Shiavism and vis versa and there have been terrible bloody religious wars between them, much like between Islam and Christianity.
The above we can put under the category of Puranic Hinduism. There is also Vedic Brahmanical Hinduism, Yogic/Vedantic Hinduism, Folk Hinduism and none of them even vaguely resemble one another. Brahmanical Hinduism is the Hinduism of the elite Brahmins and involves ritual sacrifices to the gods and performing the ordained daily rituals; Yogic or Vedantic Hinduism involves yoga, meditation, philosophy and spirituality or gnosis; Folk Hinduism is the oldest kind of Hinduism dating back probably to the times of Indus Valley, the religion of tribal people and communities in India, following a more shamanic like religion.
Thus I conclude my position that 'Hinduism' is a fallacious term, it does not describe a comprehensive religion. No such religion as 'Hinduism' even exists. The term is meaningless.
But if somebody describes themselves as 'Hindu' I am none the wiser. They can be anything from atheist, monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, henotheist, animist, ancestor worshipers, naturalist, shamanist, dualist, non-dualist, qualified non-dualist, oness and difference, Vaishnavist, Shaktist, Shiavism, Smartist, yogic/tantrik, RHP, LHP, Ganesha worshipers, Hanuman worshipers, Sun worshipers, Cow, Snake and Rat worshipers, river or tree worshipers or worshipers of 330 million other gods!
I mean lets face it the term 'Hinduism' is a bad term created by the British attempting to classify the religious thought and diverse traditions and philosophies of an entire subcontinent under one monolithic label, simply because they accepted the authority of the Vedas as their founders. But that is like lumping all Abrahamic religions together like Islam, Christianity and Judaism and creating a religion called "Abrahamism" simply because they accept the authority of Abraham as their founder. If tomorrow such a religion was coined, I can bet you a million dollars Christians, Muslims and Jews would cry foul and demand they be treated as separate religions.
In like manner Vaishnavism, Shiavism, Shaktism have all the features of a separate religion. They worship a different deity as supreme, they have a different canon of scriptures, different beliefs, myths and rituals. Historically, they have never got on with each other, more so true with Vaishnavism and Shiviaism. Vaishnavism denigrates Shiavism and vis versa and there have been terrible bloody religious wars between them, much like between Islam and Christianity.
The above we can put under the category of Puranic Hinduism. There is also Vedic Brahmanical Hinduism, Yogic/Vedantic Hinduism, Folk Hinduism and none of them even vaguely resemble one another. Brahmanical Hinduism is the Hinduism of the elite Brahmins and involves ritual sacrifices to the gods and performing the ordained daily rituals; Yogic or Vedantic Hinduism involves yoga, meditation, philosophy and spirituality or gnosis; Folk Hinduism is the oldest kind of Hinduism dating back probably to the times of Indus Valley, the religion of tribal people and communities in India, following a more shamanic like religion.
Thus I conclude my position that 'Hinduism' is a fallacious term, it does not describe a comprehensive religion. No such religion as 'Hinduism' even exists. The term is meaningless.
Last edited: