நான் இந்துவா? Am I A Hindu?

[Naina_Marbus]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

நான் இந்துவா? Am I A Hindu?

An interesting blog item in Tamil by Jeyamohan:
http://www.jeyamohan.in/21656#.VZ1Dwvma4Xg
It was posted July 5, 2015 - reposting of an earlier post in 2011.
It may have been posted here earlier, I don't know. But it is worth
refreshing the memory.


An English translation of the same in Swarajya magaine:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/am-i-a-hindu/

 

[Naina_Marbus]

An interesting blog item in Tamil by Jeyamohan:
http://www.jeyamohan.in/21656#.VZ1Dwvma4Xg

An English translation of the same in Swarajya magaine:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/am-i-a-hindu/

Excerpts:
தமிழ்நாட்டில் ஏராளமான படித்த அடித்தளப் பின்னணி கொண்ட இளைஞர்களிடம் உள்ள குழப்பம்தான் இது. இந்தக்குழப்பம் சென்ற பல வருடங்களாக திராவிட இயக்கங்களாலும் இடதுசாரிகளாலும் வளர்க்கப்படுகிறது. அவர்களுக்குப்பின்னால் மதமாற்றத்தை நோக்கமாகக் கொண்டு பெரும் நிறுவன வலிமையுடனும் பணபலத்துடனும் செயல்படும் சக்திகள் உள்ளன. அவர்கள் இந்த ஐயத்தை ஒரு கருத்துநிலையாக மாற்ற முயல்கிறார்கள்.

உங்கள் கேள்வியை இந்த பின்னணியில் ஆராயுங்கள். ’நான் இந்துவா?’ இந்த வினாவை சைவர்களும் வைணவர்களும் சாக்தர்களும் எல்லாம் கேட்டுக்கொள்ளமுடியும் அல்லவா? சைவ வழிபாடு வேறு வைணவ வழிபாடு வேறு அல்லவா? அப்படியானால் இந்து என்பவர் யார்? எல்லாரும் சேர்ந்தால்தான் இந்து. தனியாக இருந்தால் சைவரோ வைணவரோ சாக்தரோதான்.

இந்து மதம் என்பது எல்லை வகுக்கப்பட்ட ஒரு பிராந்தியம் அல்ல. பல்வேறு தரப்புகள் உரையாடிகொண்டே இருக்கும் ஒரு பரப்பு. உங்கள் தெய்வங்களும் நீங்களும் ஏற்கனவே அந்த இந்து மதப்பரப்புக்குள்தான் இருக்கிறீர்கள்.

 

[Naina_Marbus]

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/am-i-a-hindu/

This confusion exists among a large section of educated youth in Tamilnadu who come from a humble background. This has been fanned by Dravidian organizations and the Left over the past several years. Powers with financial and organisational mightiness which operate with the objectives of proselytisation stand behind them. They seek to convert this confusion into a firm concept.

Please examine this question from this background. ‘Am I a Hindu?’. Saivaites, Vaishnavites and Saktars could ask this question too, isn’t it?  Saivite and Vaishnavite forms of worship are different, aren’t they> Then, who is a Hindu? One is ‘Hindu’ only if everyone stays together.  If they stand alone, they are merely Saivite, Vaishnavite or Saktar.

Hindu religion is not an ear-marked region.  It is an expanse in which several fronts continue to be in dialogue. You and your deities are already a part of this vast Hindu expanse. 

 

[CHANDRU1849]

To avoid this confusion, a common code, applicable and acceptable by all, must be introduced, shunting out different religious leaders with various sects.

 

[Naina_Marbus]

To avoid this confusion, a common code, applicable and acceptable by all, must be introduced, shunting out different religious leaders with various sects.

[FONT=&quot]From what Jeyamohan commented especially towards the end of his article, the inference is that the the uniqueness of being a Hindu is that there is no constraint or common code to follow, being in an expansive domain in which several fronts continue to be in dialogue. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] That is perhaps the spirit behind[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT] "[FONT=&quot]நாமார்க்கும்[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]குடியல்லோம்[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]நமனை[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]அஞ்சோம்[/FONT]"

 

[tks]

There is an interesting discussion about Hindu Identity between Indian Americans (born in America) and Rajiv Malhotra

Let me provide a link to the segment. It is about an hour of interesting discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1so043-JPk

 

[tks]

One of the best answers I have heard to the question - "why are you a Hindu for whatever it means to you" is
"It is the only religion whose doctrinal foundation tells me I am not a Hindu but I am the unborn uncreated Self" and hence I am a Hindu

 

[Naina_Marbus]

One of the best answers I have heard to the question - "why are you a Hindu for whatever it means to you" is
"It is the only religion whose doctrinal foundation tells me I am not a Hindu but I am the unborn uncreated Self" and hence I am a Hindu

In other words, the only doctrine of the religion is not to be doctrinaire?

 

[Brahmanyan]

நான் இந்துவா? Am I A Hindu?

There is no definition for the word Hindu in our classical religious scriptures, neither a legal definition available. Even our Constitution and The Hindu Marriage Act defines only who can be included under the word " Hindu".

"The Supreme Court [of India] in the course of deciding an appeal in an election petition, has interpreted the meaning of 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism' as a 'synonym of 'Indianisation' -- i.e. development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all all cultures co-existing in the country.' The unanimous judgement given by the three-judge bench consisting of Justices J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh and K. Venkataswami, on December 11, 1995, has quoted earlier Supreme Court judgements and opinions of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. Toynbee and others in coming to the conclusion that Hinduism represented a way of life." ( Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati )

"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." says Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, in his lectures on " The Hindu View Of Life," (1926)

According to Jawaharlal Nehru, "the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of very late occurrence." (The Discovery of India)

I give below excerpts from the Blog of Mr Salman Rashid, Travel writer and Fellow of Royal Geographic Society of Pakistan, on the subject, "I, a child of the Maha Sapta Sindhu" which will be of interest:

What then of the word Indus? How did we ever arrive at it?

Now, Sanskrit, the mother lode of all Indo-European languages, gives us the word Sindhu. When this word was transferred to Avestan (ancient Persian), a closely related language, the initial s was dropped and replaced by an h for the Sindhu to become Hindu. This is a common mechanism in the exchange of words from Sanskrit to Persian and we have countless words similarly transmogrified. To name just one: sapt (seven) in Sanskrit becomes haft in Persian.

The asthan (home) where this great river flowed was thus Hindu Asthan or Hindustan. In the pre-classical period the Persians were in close contact with the Greeks and it was only natural for knowledge of and the name of the Hindu River and his land to transfer to that country. But after their own fashion, the Greeks dropped the initial h and append an s ending to call our river Indu or Indus. As the Persians had named this wonderful land Hindustan, so followed the Greeks to call it India after the Indus, the father of our civilisation.

It is believed, incorrectly of course, that Alexander and his followers were the first Europeans to use the words Indus or India. Herodotus (born 484 BCE), known as the Father of History, who wrote his treatise a hundred years before the birth of Alexander, mentions the Indus. He tells us of its exploration and mapping in the last years of the 6th century by the Greek sea captain Scylax on the bidding of Darius the Great. The Greeks even then knew the river as the Indus and its country as India.

In the 8th century CE, the Arabs used the term Sindh and Hind for the trans-Sindhu lands while the river itself was Mehran for them. No history explains where and how they got this name, but they did not refer to the people of this land as Hindus. By a most peculiar and unlearned twist of usage, the name of the Maha Sapta Sindhu in its Persian incarnation of Hindu came to describe the followers of the Sanatana Dharma. This was in the 11th century with the beginning of the predatory raids of the uncultured Turks. It became the norm forever after – its origin and real meaning forgotten.

Now, the Sindhu flows through what is Pakistan. And so the land that was its asthan really was what we today call Pakistan. That is, we are the real India, the land of the Sindhu. If anything, the country that we so erroneously know by that name should be Bharat, as it was called after the heroic prince of the Mahabharata. One could say that they across our eastern border have usurped upon our name. But they haven’t. Only the founding fathers of Pakistan, not having been grounded in classical history and geography, went amiss. The result: that even today we drift across a wilderness of a soul-destroying identity crisis seeking illegitimate Arab, Central Asiatic, Persian and Turkish fathers for ourselves.

Whatever the case, as time passed we began to hold in spite the people called by the Persian pronunciation of the name of our river. As a young man I was told that the meaning of Hindu in Persian is ‘a mean, deceptive, dark-skinned person.’ This was a falsehood for no Persian dictionary holds this meaning of the word.

The bottom line is that we who live upon the wide breast of the Sindhu, the father of a civilisation that goes far back into the mists of time, the river that feeds us today and lights up our homes, are the real Hindus.

I, a child of the Maha Sapta Sindhu, should rightfully be called a Hindu.

Full article is available in the following weblink:
http://odysseuslahori.blogspot.in/20...ilisation.html

I have mentioned about this Blog in my previous post some time back. How ever I thought it is worth repeating the same now when we discuss the subject.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sarang]

All confusion is because we have succumbed to western interpretation of our dharma, way of life, scriptures, matams, citizenship and culture. Akhanda bharat, bhahrateeyata, hindutva, sampradaya - all these and similar terms have to be explained and understood in indian cultural context.

 

[tks]

In other words, the only doctrine of the religion is not to be doctrinaire?

Short answer is actually Yes and No

Yes answer explanation: The foundational aspects of Hinduism is based on universal principles and universal truth that governs all beings (including human beings). This is the assertion about the the Paramarthika Satyam which does not have its origin in human thought.

No answer explanation: The world we find ourselves in, is full of limitless variety and quality of living and non-living things . They appear, sustain & destroy each other in an ecosystem. In this world/universe, Vyavaharika Satyam (truth) sustains the world of opposites. The umbrella religion of Hinduism is unique in the sense that it acknowledges the universal aspects of this phenomenological world of variety and does not *impose* any commandments & absolutes on human beings (like Thou Shalt Not ..... etc). This is because the 'Samanya Dharma' is known to all human beings no matter where they are born. Individual traditions within Hinduism may impose rules on its followers but they do respect existence of other traditions. Obviously there have been fights between people representing various tradition but those are attributable to human weakness and humans not following principles of Dharma.

Our emphasis is therefore on following Swadharma (which has to be aligned with Samanya Dharma) and such an approach has allowed people of all kinds and faiths to co-exist in an interdependent manner.

For a Hindu, Isvara can be visualized in a christian cross or an empty room (as in Chidambara Rahasyam). Such an Isvara is both immanent and transcendent. This sense of respect and acceptance of each other is best illustrated by Swami Vivekananda's chicago address and its basis is the above understanding. To quote Swami Vivekananda -

" I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation. I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human beings: "As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.""

The last part is the famous line known to most people doing Sandhyavandanam

"आकाशात् पतितं तोयं यथा गच्छति सागरम् सर्व देव नमस्कारः केशवं प्रतिगच्छति"

This universal approach to relating to each other does not mean accepting Adharma of others. For example the theologies of Christianity and Islam includes the cancerous aspects of conversion of others at any cost. Hindus have no problem acknowledging that different people may feel exclusive about their swadharma or their Ishta Devata.

It is an issue when anyone wants to convert others to their unique belief system. Cancerous cells have to be fought and neutralized and that is Dharma for mutual sustenance. In this sense Hindus do not have a doctrine of accepting any belief system in this order of phenomenological world.

There are excellent verses about the importance of following Swadharma in B.Gita Chapter 3. This world view of mutual respect and universal acceptance is unique to Hinduism.

The no answer is about saying no to adharma and in that sense the doctrine is very specific and categoric.

I

 

[mkrishna100]

Nice one from Jeymohan .This is the most discussed artilce on the net now .