What is Hindu Dharma?
Over several posts, I have gone into this topic,
- Definitions
- Anchors of Bharatiya Dharmic Evolution
- Basics of 'Hindu'
- Why is 'Hindu' non-negotiable?
- What does 'Hindu' embody?
- Disabusing 'Hindutva's Image Problem
- Do we need 'Hinduism'?
- Pros and Cons of 'Hinduism'?
- 'Hinduism' - The Trojan Horse
- Vaidik Dharmics ⊂ Hindus
Atri garu has gone into the
problems with the use of identity markers. Atri garu also
writes what Hindu encompasses
Atri wrote:Look at pre-islamic times -
While discussing on Dharmik debates, we had various identities (one belonged to Manu's school, OR yagnavalkya's school OR apastambha's school etc). While discussing on aarthik debates, we had various identities (chankian, vidurian, bheeshman, shukracharyian, etc)
heck, even on Kaama matters, we had people who were "vatsayanaian" or jayadevian etc..
and of course we had sankhya-yoga-bauddha-vedanta etc for moksha matters..
"Hindu" encompasses all of these against "Muslim" or "Christian".
Rudradev ji
writes
Giving up a Hindu identity in favour of new fangled, politically correct fabrications is a big step towards such extinction. It amounts to kicking away the few yards of ground left beneath our collective feet, in the hope that we can all be happy under water.
This is why I regard the purva-paksha of Rajiv Malhotra as by far the most important new idea to emerge from within the sphere of Hindu thought, possibly since independence. As many on this thread have observed, you cannot place Hindu Dharma in a box, or constrain it within some narrow schema of doctrine; it defies containment. Hindus cannot face the West (or even the Adharmics who run rampant within India herself) by assuming a Western-style identity based on an ordinate set of "values", i.e. by defining ourselves along rule-sets predetermined by Adharmic systems. Rajiv Malhotra takes the opposite approach, and begins by defining what Hinduism is not... in opposition to Western, Chinese and Islamic systems. By focusing on the face the outsider sees, he arrives at the only practical method of providing a common identity to us all. If a more relevant or effective approach exists to address the problems we face today, I haven't come across it. Purva-paksha was a critically important tool for Hindus facing the intra-dharmic challenges of Buddha/Jaina paths in the first millennium CE, and I have every reason to believe it will achieve the same success against the external adharmic challenges we face today. At no time was relinquishing the "Hindu" identity ever necessary.
brihaspati garu
wrote
My example was to illustrate the problem of having to be limited by hard stated values, and not principles that can be used to decide on a wide variety of deviations from exemplary cited cases. On the other hand, making the principle too relative ["truth" may depend on perception in some cases] may not help us in pinpointing clarifying decisions.
Thus trying to define "dharma" by practice would have to necessarily come down to the level of a "code bill" and hence will catch all the limitations of language, and that of a particular human social experience in a given time and place. Sooner or later some will take "dharma" and "practice" to be equivalent, and would see disaster when the laws need to be changed or if they are not changed - they will be thrown out by large numbers of people anyway - and then "dharma" will seem to have been thrown away.
We need to be careful in tying up dharma with a specific table of values of applicable importance. Application ties down the principle. Its almost like trying to illustrate a theorem by examples and then forgetting that the examples are special cases of a more general result. Some may find an example that differs radically in values and output - and because it differs dramatically from the previously cited examples - claims that the "theorem" is wrong and to be discarded.
Do we ask ourselves why the term 'Hindu' is so dear to some and so loathsome to others. Why do we hang on to this identity marker 'Hindu'? We already have ways to denote us. In Bharat, all Sampradayas had their own ways to denote themselves - Sanatan Dharma, Arya Samaj, Sikh Dharma, Jain Dharma, Buddh Dharma, Cārvāka, etc. So why do we need 'Hindu'? Is it as a collective for all the above mentioned Dharmic Sampradayas? Hardly, as with time, machinations of Nehruvian-Secularism have ensured that except for Sanatan Dharma, others go at a distance from it.
I think the confusion in Bharat really started when we stopped doing the
neti neti. It is this principle which has practically built up our knowledge base about the world and more importantly about us. But we have ignored it for too long. That is why Rajiv Malhotra has been a breath of fresh air for Bharatiya intellectual pursuit.
I think now I can dare to suggest what Hindu Dharma is, as the idea has now crystallized enough for me.
I wrote in the
first post of this process of inquiry:
RajeshA wrote:Definition of Hindu - Any ethnic Indian who follows the traditions originating in the Indian Subcontinent.
I revised it
later on to
RajeshA wrote:Hindu: Set {all inhabitants of India} - Set {all inhabitants adhering to foreign religions}
I revised it
still further
RajeshA wrote:So 'Hindus' became the Target. But a target resists, and as we as 'Hindus' also became the Resistance.
So the term 'Hindu' from the Islamic PoV became the Target, and the term 'Hindu' from the Bharatiya PoV became the Resistance.
The Hindus were all those in Bharatvarsha who resisted the Islamic assault on Bharatiya Sabhyata, which tried to not only convert the religion of Bharatiyas to Islam but tried to also change the allegiance of Bharatiyas to another 'civilization', the Islamic Civilization.
The Islamics, the 'Targeters' defined the 'Target' and from their definition of 'Target', the Bharatiyas defined the 'Resistance' and the name of this Resistance was 'Hindu'.
The problem of defining 'Hindu' and the problem of looking for some Dharmic Code of Values to put in the Indian Constitution are one and the same.
We have been trying to find out what are "those core, universal Dharmic ideas" which bind us all together and then some of us are looking at ways on how to formulate them for an ideal Constitution and around those ideas to find some commonality.
Also the Sanataniks
have done their part to inject 'Hinduism' with all of our Sanatan Dharma and to call these equivalent.
The Problem is what I call "Definition by Positive Content". It is the inverse of
neti neti. Instead of being "not this, not that" we end up defining ourselves by "this, and this, and this, and ..." A "Definition by Positive Content" would ultimately miss out something, or due to inadequate formulation leave something to misunderstanding or mischief. Now it is admirable that the various Dharmic Sampradayas have been able to give some Gestalt to their essence, but that also means that it has taken long deliberations in many smritis and shastras to arrive at their self-definition, and before that much
neti neti has been done. So whereas
referencing various concepts from these smritis and shastras is fully okay,
distilling these smritis and shastras for some lowest common denominator is a risky task.
So when we approach the issue of defining 'Hindu Dharma' we are faced with a similar challenge.
As many of us already 'feel' the term 'Hindu' is much broader than Sanatan Dharma and in fact has a totally different origin and evolution.
'Hindu Dharma' needs it own neti neti in order to better understand itself. But the 'Hindu' identity was forged in the fires of Resistance, so I would claim that a "Definition by Positive Content" is simply wrong and impossible. The Hindu identity itself means "Neti Neti". It means "We are not this Muslim, We are not that Christian". The Hindu Identity can only be defined by underlining WHAT 'HINDU' IS NOT, it can only be defined by underlining WHY 'HINDU' IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY. Hindu Dharma can only be defined using a "Definition of Negative Content".
So 'Hindu Dharma' has three constituents
- The historical physical resistance to Islam and Christianism, to all foreign predatory expansionary imperialistic religious ideologies
- The modern intellectual resistance to Islam and Christianism, which are expanding in India under the protective shielding of Nehruvian-Secularism.
- The traditional cultural resistance to Islam and Christianism, where each and every Dharmic Sampradaya, be they Sanataniks, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Animists, Nastiks, whatever Bharatiyas go and nurture their culture and as well as the common Bharatiya cultural heritage. We resist by retaining our culture. Hindu Dharma is however not in the business of prescribing any religious rituals. All that is outsourced to the various individual Dharmic Sampradayas and Samskaras
As far as cultural resistance is concerned, Rajiv Malhotra has spoken of at length about digestion and inculturation practices of Christianists in India - Christian Yoga, Christian Bharat Natyam, etc. Similarly Nehruvian-Secularists have tried to promote the West Asian cultural enrichment of India even to the extent of India's defining culture.
As far as intellectual resistance is concerned, we need to better differentiate between us and them. 'Hindu Dharma' would be defined by the exact practices we cannot allow the Islamists and Christianists in India to follow in India, and perhaps one day we can define that for the world as well. 'Hindu Dharma' would be defined by 'Resistance to all the Adharma of Islam and Christnism'.
Closing the circle, in the beginning I wrote a few posts on my "Purva Paksha" of Islam
- Differences: Direct Transceivers
- Differences: Sitting for the Exam
- Differences: Saving the Native
- Differences: Clerical Power
Put in a box - Hindu Dharma is very intolerant!
Hindu Dharma is very very intolerant of Adharma. That is the Hindu Dharma we need to awaken.
After all in order to recognize Adharma we need to either recognize transgressions of Dharma or do a Purva Paksha of recognized Adharmic ideological systems. Being Dharmic too is all about countenancing Adharma, and for that we need to recognize Adharma first.
Nehruvian-Secularism is the wool put on on our eyes so that we cannot recognize Adharma and thus do our Dharmic duty, thereby allowing Adharma to spread and flourish in the land of Dharma.
When we say we want a Hindutvavadi Bharat or a Hindutvavadi Constitution, what we mean is that this
"Intolerance for Adharma" as determined by a proper Purva Paksha should be embedded within the Constitution.