(July 30, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: I appreciate your explanation, PreethamJD. The idea that one can be agnostic and atheist and still be a practicing Hindu doesn't strike me as strange because I've long understood that the same can apply to Buddhists. I also did not think that Hinduism is really comparable to the Abrahamic faiths.

If Hinduism is really a kind of spiritual practice (or perhaps I should say, several kinds of spiritual practice) as opposed to an authoritative body of dogma that must be believed, would "yoga" serve as a good catch-all word to denote this? [Note: By yoga, I don't mean only the forms of yoga that have become popular in Western fitness clubs but -- more broadly -- the variety of yogic disciplines I vaguely remember reading about in Iyengar's Light on Yoga, including devotional -- Bhakti? -- yoga.] The goal, after all, is to yoke one's essential nature with Brahman, the unchanging unity-in-diversity, no?

If I've utterly misrepresented Hinduism, please correct me. We have at least one other Hindu at AF, and I'd be interested in her take, too.

I reckon you could accurately consider Yoga (including the exercises and the philosophies) as one of the many many sub-parts (for lack of a better term) of what is commonly considered Hinduism.

Really though, there is not definition of the term Hinduism even in any of the Indian languages nor is there a better word other than "religion" to describe it yet at the same time the word "religion" grossly under represents everything that is today considered Hinduism.

The Constitution of India, defines the word "Hindu" is attributed to all persons professing any Indian religion (i.e. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism)

(October 18, 2013 at 12:46 am)genkaus Wrote:

(October 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm)apophenia Wrote: I don't have a traditional Hindu upbringing, so someone like genkaus who does have that background might be better able to answer how atheists are perceived from a traditional Hindu perspective. And Hinduism is an umbrella term which connotes a broad diversity of traditions, so it's likely not useful to generalize in the absence of an understanding of that diversity anyway.

Well, this could be a whole another debate on its own. The problem with determining the traditional Hindu perspective on atheism is that, as you said, Hinduism is an umbrella term and there are no set rules regarding who gets to be under that umbrella. As is typical with such loosely defined terms, people tend to adopt the No True Scotsman fallacy as a mantra - try to slap the label on anything they like and reasonably can and try to remove it from things they don't like. The religion known as Hinduism came about more as a reactionary nationalistic propaganda against invasions of other religious entities - the so called Hindu traditions are under that umbrella by the sole virtue of not being a part of Islamic or Christian traditions. Atheistic and materialistic philosophies like Carvaka, which predate the advent of "Hinduism" by many centuries are put under that umbrella because they originated in the Indian subcontinent.

To get a better idea, imagine if Greeks had put all of their cultural history - their mythology, rites and rituals, philosophies, cultural, ethnic and racial specificities - into one big messy package called "Greekism" and said that anyone who picks one or more of the set gets to call himself "Greeky". What would you expect the "traditional" Greeky perspective to be?

That's what a traditional Hindu perspective would be like. You can identify yourself as a Hindu if that's what you are comfortable with and whether or not other other Hindus accept your claim would depend upon their personal feelings about Hinduism and how comfortable they are around you. Actually, even if you reject the label for yourself, if you fit the rather broad paradigm of Hinduism, they'd have no problem in regarding you as a Hindu. Thus, the traditional perspective would be that being a Hindu is more a matter of how you appear to be rather than what you believe in.

To give a few examples:

I remember Bobby Jindal receiving quite a bit of media coverage the first time he was elected to a political office in which he was regarded as a Hindu and his "achievement" as one for Hinduism. Which, at the time, seemed nonsensical to me because a) he was a Catholic, b) he never was an Indian Citizen and c) he is your arch-typical Republican douchebag. But because he was of Indian origin and reached a prestigious office in another country, it meant that quite a few people were comfortable trying to tag him as "one of us".

Quite a few of celebrated Indian political figures are atheist - such as Amartya Sen. As a matter of fact, the first Prime Minister of India - Jawahar Lal Nehru - was an atheist. And yet, no one seems to have any problem in regarding them as Hindus as well.

Specific to beliefs, my mother is an atheist as well. But she doesn't identify herself as one. And given that she observes certain aspects typical of Hinduism - such as dietary restrictions, festivals etc. - even I regarded her as a Hindu and had no inkling of her atheism until I asked her about it directly.

And then there is me. I don't subscribe to any of so called Hindu philosophies. I disagree with most of "Hindu" politics. I reject a lot of cultural norms - like dress-code and dietary restrictions. I'm openly opposed to religious convictions. I avoid religious festivities and temples like the plague. My participation in holidays is simply due to the fact that it is a holiday. But, I look like a Hindu, I talk with a Hindi accent, I have a Hindu name and I come from a Hindu family - so as far as traditional perspective is concerned, I'm a Hindu who is not acting like one.

To give another example, I'm a Shaktah Hindu, which means I follow the Devi or goddess in a tradition known as Shaktism. Within Shaktism itself there are many sub-traditions or sub-religions itself. These traditions are categorically different from those of Hindus who worship Krishna or Vishnu. So Hindu really refers to a diverse group of religious traditions, not a specific religion.

They are equally bad. I don't complain about Christianity often simply because it's not becoming so dangerous in europe as Islam

(July 30, 2014 at 5:20 pm)rasetsu Wrote: To give another example, I'm a Shaktah Hindu, which means I follow the Devi or goddess in a tradition known as Shaktism. Within Shaktism itself there are many sub-traditions or sub-religions itself. These traditions are categorically different from those of Hindus who worship Krishna or Vishnu. So Hindu really refers to a diverse group of religious traditions, not a specific religion.

To be quite frank, the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism" refer to "ideas" (for lack of a better term) that are so broad it renders the words meaningless.

I myself am an Indian who was raised Catholic and is now an Atheist. I have never considered myself Hindu but if I claim it, you can't deny it. I only put my religious views as Hindu to stoke debate here and because it is a meaningless word.

---

I guess it could be described as a construct of Indian nationalists in their fight for freedom against the British to unite the people of India together by claiming that we are all the same. Even then it would only be described as anything non-Muslim and non-Christian but including agnostics and atheists.

It really is something made up out of nothing to describe the wide variety of cultures and ideas in the Indian subcontinent and even then there are many Hindu philosophies that if understood properly would lead you to believe it is a way to describe everything known and even unknown in this universe.

The word "reification" comes to mind.

---

It could also be described as a construct of the British colonialists for the purpose of census taking to describe the religious views of the population.

(July 30, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Can you give us a rough translation? The English language is pretty versatile.

If the closest translation is religion, then surely calling Hinduism a religion is justified in that context, then?

I can give you a translation Fidel, it's called:

---

Stupidity

---

I hope you read my posts previous to this one. The term Hindus and Hinduism is so broad that according to some of the philosophy considered being a part of Hinduism, I could even claim you to be a Hindu and you wouldn't be able to deny by virtue of your existence let alone your beliefs.

In the same way that Neil deGrasse Tyson claims to NOT be an atheist, yet because David Silverman, current president of the American Atheists, defines an atheist as anyone who doesn't have a personal God, you could claim Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist along with other people who call themselves agnostics even if they disagree with you since the definition is so broad.

Hence, my point being, that you are a Hindu and that makes you "stupid" as well.

On a side note, sometimes I'm such a smart-ass, I amaze myself. I should've been a lawyer.

(July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm)PreethamJD Wrote: Hence, my point being, that you are a Hindu and that makes you "stupid" as well.

Yeah well I'm not playing by your bullshit definitions.

If it's so broad that pretty much anyone can be claimed to be a Hindu, what's the point of the word?

(July 30, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If it's so broad that pretty much anyone can be claimed to be a Hindu, what's the point of the word?

Exactly my point why "Hinduism" isn't a "religion" and both "Hindu" and "Hinduism" are meaningless words.

---

(July 30, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm)PreethamJD Wrote: Hence, my point being, that you are a Hindu and that makes you "stupid" as well.

Yeah well I'm not playing by your bullshit definitions.

Too bad. Anyone who understands Hindu philosophy wouldn't argue with me and you were the one who called it stupidity.

While you may not like to be a called a Hindu and may deny it, if you understood the meaning of the word, which really pretty much means anything and everything, you wouldn't have much of a standing in your counterclaims.

Also, if my definitions are bullshit, which they can't be since I actually know some of the philosophy behind them, then you should realise why both words are absolutely meaningless. Again, I must say that the term "reification" comes to mind, which means "to consider or make an abstract idea or concept, real or concrete." in regards to the "invention" of the two words in regards to religion.

(July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm)PreethamJD Wrote: I amaze myself. I should've been a lawyer.

Except that a lawyer would understand the difference between a worldview and a religion, and would have started the argument there

For all practical purposes, really the only thing that without a doubt unites a majority of Hindus in India today is their hate/mistrust/dislike of Muslims (mainly Indian and Pakistani Muslims). A common enemy brings people together. Similar to the way viewing the British as a common enemy brought the Hindus and the Muslims together in their fight for independence. Also, most Hindus are pretty ignorant about how BROAD their "religion" is. It's also mis-used for political leverage these days similar to how other fundamentalist religious people in other countries do so.

---

(July 30, 2014 at 7:11 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm)PreethamJD Wrote: I amaze myself. I should've been a lawyer.

Except that a lawyer would understand the difference between a worldview and a religion, and would have started the argument there

Care to explain?

EDIT: I think I read your post wrong the first time. If you're referring to Hinduism as a worldview, I would have to disagree. You could probably say that the philosophy part of what constitutes Hinduism can be considered a worldview. But Hinduism is so much more. Some of what is considered sacred texts include poetry, science and mathematics. I would argue that math is considered a fact which cannot be debated as opposed to a worldview/philosophy which can be debated. Hence, the term worldview doesn't accurately describe everything that is considered to be a part of Hinduism (let alone the fact that some of the philosophy allows for everything in the universe to be considered a part of it, since some of it is so broad and all-inclusive.)

Again, I'd have to say that the term "religion" grossly under represents what is considered "Hinduism" as does the term "worldview."