Is Vedanta an actual religion?

[Sand Dancer]

I am interested in Vedanta, but was wondering if they call themselves as followers of Vedanta or Hinduism? Is there a regular place of worship or just on certain days? Any specific ways to worship? I'm a newbie...

 

[Orbit]

Vedanta is a sub-set of Hindu belief.

 

[George-ananda]

I am interested in Vedanta, but was wondering if they call themselves as followers of Vedanta or Hinduism?

It's all definitions. What's your definition of Religion, Hindu, Vedanta, etc.? You don't want to get the group here started believe me.

Is there a regular place of worship or just on certain days?

No and No.

Any specific ways to worship? I'm a newbie...

No

I am a Hindu Advaita Vedantist and I don't know or associate with a single other Hindu except on RF. I'm more DIY. To me it's about understanding the concepts and then living under the concepts in thought and action. To me it is living under constant self-reminding of the Truth until it becomes my nature.

More conservative Hindus may not like my answers but what I'm saying is you can fit in where you feel comfortable and find yourself making spiritual progress. Spiritual progress is the final judge; and the test for that is am I feeling more internal peace, more internal love for others and more happiness whatever in the material world occurs.

 

[Chakra]

If we go back a couple of centuries, there was no such thing as Hinduism. All the sects that we now call part of Hinduism were their own separate religions and traditions. So Vedanta, Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimamsa, Shaivism etc were all separate traditions and were loyal only to theirs. Even Vedantic traditions like Advaita and VA considered themselves independent. Now of course, we are much more unified and go by the umbrella term "Hinduism". So I'd call myself a Vedantin and a Hindu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vedantists are Hindus. There are five flavors of Vedanta. We are separate (God and us, that is 'dvaita' vedanta - duality), if there is a God we are part of it ('advaita' vedanta - non-duality) and three in-between positions. Worship in various ways. For me, no worship, because I am what constitutes the universe. Whom can I worship? (Kasmai devāya havishā vidhema? - To which God should I pour my libations?)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now of course, we are much more unified and go by the umbrella term "Hinduism".

We here were known as Hindus since before the time of Zoroaster (Zarathroshta - people living around the River 'Sindhu' or east of it. Central Asians and Persians could not pronounce 's' and made in to an 'h', therefore 'Hendu'; of the land of seven rivers 'Sapta-Sindhu' or 'Hapta-Hendu', that is modern Pakhtoonkhwa (Gandhara), Indian and Pakistani Punjab, and the Indian state of Haryana where River Saraswati flowed at one time (Aryavarta). It has since dried up). Of course, we were always as colorful as a stained-glass window.

 

[Sand Dancer]

If we go back a couple of centuries, there was no such thing as Hinduism. All the sects that we now call part of Hinduism were their own separate religions and traditions. So Vedanta, Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimamsa, Shaivism etc were all separate traditions and were loyal only to theirs. Even Vedantic traditions like Advaita and VA considered themselves independent. Now of course, we are much more unified and go by the umbrella term "Hinduism". So I'd call myself a Vedantin and a Hindu.

Oh, I figured it was probably the oldest religion, so it was considered Hinduism. Interesting.

 

[Chakra]

Oh, I figured it was probably the oldest religion, so it was considered Hinduism. Interesting.

There really was no common unity between these different sects. I mean, I guess they all believed in the same Gods, but I think that's about it. Vedantins accepted the Upanishads, Mimamsakas did not. Vedantins and Mimamsakas accepted Vedas, Shaivas and Shaktas did not. To use an analogy, it is similar to the Greek city-states. All were independent, but they had a shared culture, religion etc. So these Hindu sects were independent, but shared Gods, texts, etc.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sapta-Sindhu: "They are often located in the in northern India / eastern Pakistan. If the Sarasvati and the five major rivers of the Pakistan are included (Sutudri - Satluj, Parusni - Ravi, Asikni - Chenab, Vitasta - Jhelum, Vipas - Vyas), all tributaries of Sindhu/Indus), one river is missing, probably the Kubha (Kabul)." Rigvedic rivers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stormcry]

We here were known as Hindus since before the time of Zoroaster (Zarathroshta - people living around the River 'Sindhu' or east of it. Central Asians and Persians could not pronounce 's' and made in to an 'h', therefore 'Hendu'; of the land of seven rivers 'Sapta-Sindhu' or 'Hapta-Hendu',

I think you should read this -

''Antiquity and origin of Hindu word"

http://www.b-i-f.com/hindu.pdf

It's time to scrap decade old theories.

 

[Stormcry]

I am interested in Vedanta, but was wondering if they call themselves as followers of Vedanta or Hinduism? Is there a regular place of worship or just on certain days? Any specific ways to worship? I'm a newbie...

The purpose of Dharma is Vedanta. So yes, Vedanta is real Dharma.

Followers of Vedanta or followers of Hinduism, the same thing with different names. There are other names as well like Arya-Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Shrauta dharma, Smarta Dharma. In Hinduism sects, words Sanatana & Vedic are more common.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The purpose of Dharma is Vedanta. So yes, Vedanta is real Dharma.

Followers of Vedanta or followers of Hinduism, the same thing with different names. There are other names as well like Arya-Dharma, Sanatana Dharma, Shrauta dharma, Smarta Dharma. In Hinduism sects, words Sanatana & Vedic are more common.

Thank you!

 

[Aupmanyav]

''Antiquity and origin of Hindu word" http://www.b-i-f.com/hindu.pdf

What I have said is not different that the word Hindu has long been in use. However the statement "Veda Vyas was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.)." (from your link) needs historical evidence. That should not stop us from believing in it.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

I am interested in Vedanta, but was wondering if they call themselves as followers of Vedanta or Hinduism?

Not all Hindus are vedantins, not all vedantins are hindus; though the latter often endorse the hindu way of life and the former respect (mostly) the vedantins. There are hindus who denounce vedanta. There are also vedantins who disagree with several, often modern, hindu practices. For instance, all vedantins accept vedas as ultimate authority on truth, whereas such acceptance is not mandatory on most others who consider themselves hindus. Even within vedantins you have śrautas - those conforming to practices from various veda śākhās (~tradition/school) and smārtas - those emphasizing conformance with smṛties like various purāṇas as well as those who adopt a few practices from the former and a few from the latter. Though historically, modern hinduism grew out of vedantic traditions. Afaik, Śri Śaṅkara/Śri Rāmānuja/Śri Madhva have not made any claims of being hindus but have considered themselves vedantins. Perhaps even Bauddha philosophy was once considered not as a separate religion. Most vedantins still don't, it is as much a darśana as say, Nyāya.

The most prominent schools are:
Nyāya (popularized by Gautama) - Vaiśeṣika (by Kaņāda) - Sāṁkhya (by Kapila) - Yoga (by Patañjali) - Karma Mīmāṁsa (by Jaimini) - Vedānta (by Veda Vyāsa)
Cārvāka, Bauddha, Jaina, were also studied. As were various tantras like Pāśupata, Śākta, Gāṇapatya, and Skānda. The only umbrella term applied for all of these was simply Dharma - which in saṁskritam means something that can be imbibed for improving oneself. Vedānta further includes primarily three schools - Māyāvāda/Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, and Tattvavāda in the order of their historical emergence.

Is there a regular place of worship or just on certain days?

In both, the emphasis is on daily practices as opposed to say, a Sunday mass, though specific days have specific significance. For e.g., Thursday for Guru. Moreover, everyday has a special significance based on the various combinations of rising constellation, lunar day, etc..

Any specific ways to worship?

From 'all ways lead to the Ultimate (universalism)' to the 'exclusive path approach' there exist various philosophies. Modern, mainstream hinduism is quite close to universalism, though the common ground for each philosophy within hinduism and vedanta is small. The vedanta schools do not support universalism, yet there are many institutions that do cater to broader groups, at times watering down core philosophies. Even the idea of dharma and karma vary significantly between each school of thought often leading to contradicting standpoints.

For lack of better option, in the Govt forms, most of us would tick the box adjacent to Hindu. But from the perspective of practice, the term Hindu is only of geo-socio-cultural significance and is not used in any of the daily practices. So if you are searching for pivot to say this is it, you'll only find someone disagreeing the moment you arrive at a semblance of such a thing.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

For lack of better option, in the Govt forms, most of us would tick the box adjacent to Hindu. But from the perspective of practice, the term Hindu is only of geo-socio-cultural significance and is not used in any of the daily practices. So if you are searching for pivot to say this is it, you'll only find someone disagreeing the moment you arrive at a semblance of such a thing.

Your post is excellent as always but I differ from the above. Is it regrettable that people following various streams in Hinduism tick Hinduism as their religion; and if the government forms mentioned the sects, then they would have liked to tick those and not declare themselves Hindus? Perhaps it is the view of a very small minority with exaggerated self-importance. I would strongly be against it, it is weakening of Hinduism, a secession. I am sorry that you think this way.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Is it regrettable that people following various streams in Hinduism tick Hinduism as their religion; and if the government forms mentioned the sects, then they would have liked to tick those and not declare themselves Hindus?

By lack of better option i meant the option not having to mandatorily tick one at all. Even the option on selecting on school of thought would've been better for policy-making. For instance, say if there was survey to identify naiyāyikas, there could've been budgetary allocation specifically to that group which has to otherwise compete with more popular schools.

Perhaps it is the view of a very small minority with exaggerated self-importance. I would strongly be against it, it is weakening of Hinduism, a secession. I am sorry that you think this way.

I think most of the hindus understand the term in their own way. You disagree with my view. Your view implicitly disagrees with some characteristics identified / endorsed by the Supreme Court of India as 'basic concepts':

"Thereafter, the basic concepts of Hindu religion, are stated thus:
(35). ...The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessary implies that all the system claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. ..."​

And, further in the same ruling:

"Features of Hindu religion recognized by this Court in Shastri Yaganapurushdasji (supra) as coming within its broad sweep are these:
(i) Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy."​

Your own view of advaitist-hindu-athiest is even smaller minority. Though, i believe that the freedom to have such a view, despite the possibility of being badgered as a small minority with exaggerated self-importance, is what makes Hinduism what it is. I'm sure you know that the term 'hindu' itself had no religious connotation, perhaps until the Brits employed it to refer to various philosophies. Accepting that imposition is what would be secessionist from the Vaidik principles.

In my view, the entire population on this side of the Sindhu can be legitimately called Hindus - as was intended by its original etymology. If vedas are considered as the sole foundation of hinduism, why shouldn't it be rather called Vaidika dharma, a term that readily finds support both in the literature and practices of the majority of its followers, than labeling our practices purely on a geo-socio-cultural term. Of course i am a hindu, but it is not a religion, and therefore i don't accept it as my religious identity because there is no support to adopt such a thing in the Vedas.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I'm sure you know that the term 'hindu' itself had no religious connotation, perhaps until the Brits employed it to refer to various philosophies.
नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

The transition of the term Hindu from one of geographic to one of religion, happened when invading Muslim conquerors made India their home (~10th Century CE). The term Hindu came to mean non-Muslim, primarily for administrative purposes. Until then, its meaning was strictly geographical (with no religious connotation), used in Western Asia and Europe to mean a person who lived East of the Sindhu river.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For instance, say if there was survey to identify naiyāyikas, there could've been budgetary allocation specifically to that group which has to otherwise compete with more popular schools.

I am not aware of any Government of India allocation for various Hindu sects.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm sure you know that the term 'hindu' itself had no religious connotation, perhaps until the Brits employed it to refer to various philosophies.

The transition of the term Hindu from one of geographic to one of religion, happened when invading Muslim conquerors made India their home (~10th Century CE). The term Hindu came to mean non-Muslim, primarily for administrative purposes. Until then, its meaning was strictly geographical (with no religious connotation), used in Western Asia and Europe to mean a person who lived East of the Sindhu river.

As Shivasomashekhar says you would have to move the date of the word Hindu used to indicate a religion back by a few Centuries. The Muslims were here in Seventh Century. I do not know what Kushanas and Huns termed our religion as (though I do not know of any word other than Hindu which could have been used. I am sure they did not know of the words 'Sanatan' or 'Vedic').

"During the period of early Rajput supremacy in North and North-West India(modern day Pakistan) (7th century), the first Muslim invasions were carried out simultaneously with the expansion towards Central Asia. In 664, forces led by Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah began launching raids from Persia, striking Multan in the southern Punjab, in what is today Pakistan. In 711, an expedition led by Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir at what is now Hyderabad in Sindh, and established the Umayyad domination in the area by 712." Muslim conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Your view implicitly disagrees with some characteristics identified / endorsed by the Supreme Court of India as 'basic concepts':

"Thereafter, the basic concepts of Hindu religion, are stated thus:
(35). ...The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessary implies that all the system claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. ..."​

And, further in the same ruling:

"Features of Hindu religion recognized by this Court in Shastri Yaganapurushdasji (supra) as coming within its broad sweep are these:
(i) Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy."​

Since when Supreme Court of India has become the arbitrator in Hinduism, though it may have legal powers. For example, Hindu Code Bill makes monogamy essential in law for Hindus and the three related religions, there is nothing against polytheism or polyandry in Hinduism.

Most Hindus know nothing about Vedas, very few may have read them, even fewer understand them. Vedas do not make Hinduism, there is more to Hinduism than just the Vedas. It was the lore of an immigrant population which got amalgamated in Hinduism.

And do you know that this Shastri Yagnapurushdas was not even a Hindu himself. He was a Swaminarayan follower. Supreme Court got help from a wrong person. I do not know who suggested the name of Shastri Yangnapurshdas to the Supreme Court (must have been Nehru) and not the leaders of the Hindu Mathas. Shastriji Maharaj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have never worried about being an extreme minority with my atheist advaitist Hindu views because, as you said, that is what makes Hinduism what it is. And I am a proud Hindu for that.​