Hindu & Bharatiya
RajeshA wrote:IMHO
Definition of Hindu - Any ethnic Indian who follows the traditions originating in the Indian Subcontinent.
Definition of Hindutva - Pride in identification with this Hindu identity
Definition of Hindu-ism - The traditions that Indians follow, traditions which originated in the Indian Subcontinent.
There are some who specify a particular tradition and receive their identity from that tradition, some of them considering their identity outside the overarching Hindu identity, but that is a decision for that community, but it does not change the definition as such. Hindu-ism is inclusive of all traditions which have originated in the Indian Subcontinent or organically evolved from those which have originated here.
I'd like to go further in exploring these identities.
When we have to produce a definition, especially one of identity, we can look at various ways:
- Demarcation from other identities
- Philosophical and Ritual content of the identity
- Founders of the identity
- Founding event of the identity
- Geographical origin of the identity
- Organizational edifice of the identity
- Membership of the identity
- ...
In any case one needs to find
some anchor for any identity. The difficulty for many Indians to grasp identities like 'Hindu' is that it does not offer the same anchors as say Abrahamic religions which can produce well-defined anchors.
We can of course define 'Hindu' by content as johneeG has so admirably done earlier. But there will be others who will feel uneasy as they may think that their
sangh or
dera is not being adequately fitted into that definition. We also include sometimes various tribes in India which still practice some animist faith or some tribe which has lived isolated into the Hindu fold. So I feel if try to form the identity of 'Hindu' based on content, then some part of the fabric would remain hanging out of the suitcase. For this reason I used to call the Hindu identity as a Continuum, rather than as a Containment (semantically). This does not mean we should not give any Content Definition. We should. But if we wish to anchor using a 'Content Definition' lets call it
'Core Hinduism', or
'Orthodox Hinduism' rather than just Hinduism.
For most Hindus, their identity as an individual has always been solid, but as an over-arching community has remained amorphous and vague.
This amorphous nature of the identity is in fact an intrinsic aspect of the 'Hindu' community, because along the
content definition axis, it is a Continuum and not a Containment. The free evolutionary and experimental nature of Hinduism, the emphasis on personal journey for Moksha, the liberty to write new smritis and shastras, all lead to this amorphous nature.
Either triggered by self-introspection or by external query either by other religions or other 'Hindus' who seem to have lost their moorings, one is of course 'forced' to think about the Hindu identity of the community! One is asked to produce similar anchors as are available to other religions - holy book, holy prophet, five pillars, vow of allegiance or initiation, etc. Hindus have some difficulty answering this, simply because the structure of our identity and belief systems is different. Do we need to produce the same anchors as some history-centric religions have? If we do it, often we are cutting into our own flesh in order to fit their ideological coffins.
But considering that we are bring invaded by proselytization armies using all sorts of methods - fear, money, privileges, etc., that we are being attacked physically and are being ethnically cleansed, that we are not being supported by our own state as a community, that there is increasing polarization among communities, it is of course important that we put up a united front. For that we need a Hindu identity at the whole community level, and not just at an individual level.
But despite this need should we still impose a similar containment over us based on the same anchors as other religions do?
In some way or another we have to define our predominant anchor! For that we have to look at our history and society and find out how we are different from the others. Our anchor is to be found elsewhere.
Hindu-ism is like a Banyan Tree. It has organically grown, branched, put new roots into the Earth, and still remained one. Hindu-ism is also like a Great Melange, where things have fused together producing more diversity and beauty.
Hindu-ism has a different way of expansion. It is based on
preservation of the native. Looking at it historically, our mythology has woven together many narratives of our Kuladevtas and produced a single mythology and people say we have 33 million gods.
I have elaborated on our differences from other Abrahamic religions earlier, though of course not comprehensively
- Differences: Direct Transceivers
- Differences: Sitting for the Exam
- Differences: Saving the Native
- Differences: Clerical Power
This is also useful to understand what our anchors are.
So in Hindu-ism we have both
- organic growth and branching
- fusion of many
Of course we have our Vedas, and there can be no stronger beej for our civilization, but we also have some other strong traditions like Tantra, Tirthankaras of Jainism, Hatha Yoga, etc. Sorry if I make any mistake here. I am stressing here the morphology rather than the theology.
So what I see is that if there was organic growth, then the seed can be our anchor. I there was fusion of many, then the many seeds can be our anchors.
What is fortunate for us is that the history-centrism of Christianity and Islam actually
do not allow any religious syncretism. Those seeds have not as such contributed to Hinduism, and so we do not need to consider these seeds in our equation.
Since our history is so long, and even though much has been transmitted to us, one would always have difficulty pointing out the exact seeds. It is good if we can but there are simply too many, especially if we consider the Kuladevtas.
So in order to give an anchor to the Hindu Continuum, I proposed
"traditions which originate in Bharatiya Civilization or are based on other traditions which have their origin in Bharatiya Civilization" belong to Hinduism.
The anchor is geographical and temporal.
The Hindu identity, the
Hindu-ism, has to be anchored in geography of Bharat and the cycle of Bharatiya Sabhyata.
Bharatiya Sabhyata and Bharatavarsha provide the time-space anchor for the Hindu identity and of course for the Bharatiya identity.
And because Bharatiya Sabhyata allows for organic growth and evolution for all that it embodies, it does not restrict Hinduism (religion) to a snapshot, to a book, to a cult figure, to five commandments, etc. Similarly Bharatvarsha may be considered as a limited geography, limited space, but the
bhava, the sentiment for Bharatvarsha can exist regardless of where one is the universe. The journey itself is Hinduism, and its the journey of billions of
atmas through umpteen
punarjanams (reincarnations) through umpteen
margs (paths). But in the temporal world, we are all anchored to Bharatvarsha and Bharatiya Sabhyata.
That however does not take away from the universalist appeal of any of the Hindu (Dharmic) traditions.
That is why the identity 'Hindu' and 'Bharatiya' complement each other. 'Hindu' focuses on the faith and 'Bharatiya' focuses on the history, and both are anchored by Bharatvarsha and Bharatiya Sabhyata. However neither is Hindu identity solely about faith, nor is the Bharatiya identity just about history.
I am eagerly waiting to join your dharmic code. But can I fall back to what pope says in matters of faith? For example all non Christian code pushers are sinners and will go to hell 
