johneeG wrote:The fundamental of Hinduism is: Vedas(including the Upanishads/Vedanta).
Hindus are united by Vedas. Zimple. Everything else is up for debate.
Similarly,
fundamental of Buddhism is Buddha. Everything else is open for negotiation.
fundamental of Christianity is Jesus. Everything else is open for negotiation.
fundamental of Islam is Mohammad. Everything else is open for negotiation.
The above may not be discernible immediately. It is evident when the creeds are forced to evolve.
johneeG ji,
while I agree with the above in general I have an issue with application of the above.
Re: Agenda
For me the primary issue here is one of consolidation of Bharatiyas, i.e. those who care for Bharatvarsha, wish to see Bharatiya Civilization prosper again and wish to see Bharatvarsha under a Dharmic leadership, under a composite identity where their sense of political identity, historical identity, cultural identity, and faith-based identity find harmony and cohesion, thus giving Bharatiyas a drive to act based on agendas derived from their various pan-Bharatiya and sub-identities.
For Bharatiyas, Bharatvarsha is focal. It is our Punya Bhoomi. It is our Karma Bhoomi (even if one lives outside India). It is our Janam Bhoomi (if not directly then indirectly). It is our Bharat Mata.
For those whose Punya Bhoomi is outside India, who do not consider the land, Bharat Mata, who are still enslaved by foreign imperialist religious ideologies, they we cannot take along ideologically, even if at the practical level we must still ensure that their conduct remains conducive to the interests of the land.
Now Bharatiya Civilization has had many different Sampradayas -
Aastik and
Naastik. In their own way they have contributed to the advance of our civilization. Most of our kings and emperors have lend their support to all Sampradayas. We have had kings and emperors who have been Buddhists and Jains. We have had a Sikh Maharaja who pushed the Adharmics all the way back to their lands north of Khyber Pass.
So the Bharatiya Identity is intricately linked with ALL the Sampradayas. It cannot be detached from that fact. Even as at the theological-philosophical level there has always been strong competition between the Sampradayas, including in inter-sampradayic conversions, it was always done according to the rules of the game, which excluded violence, coercion or material temptation. It was based on convincing the other of the rightness of one's stand based on cultured debate and impressing the other with one's knowledge and cultural richness. That was the general rule.
Most importantly all the Dharmic Sampradayas took birth in Bharatvarsha and came to be what they are through shared history, each enriching oneself from what came and from the others.
The foreign imperialist religious ideologies which invaded India were neither born of the soil nor observed the rules of the game.
So whereas at theological level, Sanatanics and Buddhists may have had a bitter rivalry, at the cultural and political level it didn't mean much.
So if Bharatiyas have to unite, Sanatanics and Buddhists, along with Jains and Sikhs would have to find common ground at the philosophical level which sets them apart from the foreign imperialist religious ideologies - the Abrahamics. There may be Bharatiyas who may not believe in any of these traditions and may just be atheists or have no opinion on all of this and if possible, even they need to be taken along.
Re: Comparison as made by you
The reason why Sanatan Dharma spread all over India was not just because everybody recognized the authority of the Vedas at get go, but because the Sanatanics had the ability to assimilate local customs and traditions into the tapestry and web of Indian mythology without destroying them and explaining the local customs and traditions from a much more fundamental philosophical viewpoint. It was this ability which made the people everywhere recognize the authority of the Vedas, for that was the framework which accorded national authority on their own preexisting local beliefs and customs.
So whereas each person may have his Ishtdevta or a community may have their Kuladevta, at important life-cycle events - weddings, funerals, they ask a pundit who knows the Vedas to recite them. They recognize the authority of the Vedas, just as the Vedas recognizes the authority of their local beliefs and customs.
Today if one says Sanatanics (popularly also known as Hindus) are united by the Vedas, this dynamic is quite different to how it is in Christianity or Islam or even Buddhism. There each holds on to Jesus, or Muhammad or even Buddha very closely and people are intimately conversant with these icons. Christians have a Bible at home, Muslims have a Quran at home and Buddhists too have some Buddha statue at home. But how many who are today called Hindus have a compilation of Vedas at home or know even a single verse from the Vedas? Earlier Vedas were not even in the written form or on some digital media to get.
So the recognition of the authority of the Vedas works differently. Vedas was the domain of Brahmins and Pundits. The others, the commoners used to approach the Supreme through their Ishtadevta.
Vedas are for most Sanatanics not a personal scripture, even though they all recognize its authority. So in that way, the Vedics did not impose Vedas on all Sanatanics making the Vedas something personal for them. One reason was because it was Śrauta, and its phonetic integrity needed to be preserved and making it a common-commodity would have caused damage to that goal. There may have been other reasons.
So even as we say Sanatanics recognize the authority of the Vedas, to an individual Sanatanic it would lack the personal experience as other icons provide to other religions. Now this is not that relevant to a discourse of national identity, but perhaps the nuance is important when making comparisons with others.
Re: Common Dharmic Claim
So for Bharatiya unity, a Dharmic unity is essential, for otherwise just as you did all of the religions can be considered equivalent - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, thus allowing the Indian State to impose a secularism and call it as equivalent to what previous political manisfestations of Bharat have had, where the King was not necessarily a Sanatanic, but say a Jain or a Buddhist or a Sikh (later on), and most people in India would say there is no need for one religious group to dominate and as such Hindutva would be kept in the rain to get wet but would not be allowed in into power.
However if one makes the argument that in Bharatiya Civilization, power has always been in the hands of a Dharmic and the monarch or government was always forced to rule according to Dharma, then that makes today's India an aberration from its previous political manifestations, and we can make a case that that is not acceptable.
So for national unity, the theological position if made at the political level that "Hinduism" is just as distant from Buddhism as it is from Islam and Christianity is a position which harms the interests of all Bharatiyas, and perpetuates the current state where foreign imperialist religious ideologies can rule over Bharat through their secularism tool!
It is of course wrong for Sanatanics to compromise on the authority of the Vedas at the theological level, but at the political level, neither is this compromise necessary nor the Sanatanics have to make it. The Vedas are not like the Shariah, and at the political level they need not play any part.
Of course, Vedic authority can give or withhold its approval of the Dharmic dispensation that takes power over Bharatvarsha, but considering that such a dispensation would not be negating or rejecting the authority of the Vedas, the Vedic authority too should not withhold its approval.
So for political unity, one would have to find a way to separate the Dharmics from the Abrahamics if one wishes to delegitimize secularism in India, and thus banish Nehruvian-Secularism which is just a wrapper around the Islamo-Christianist Platform.
We cannot do othering of the Buddhist view from Bharatiya Civilization and Bharatiya History, for that breaks the Bharatiya Civilization. We however need to do othering of the Abrahamics because their religious allegiance lies to centers of power outside India and cannot be Bharatiya and this othering is necessary to save the Bharatiya Civilization.
So at the philosophical level too we would need to find common ground between Sanatanics, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs, and forge that common ground into an identity - the "Dharmic"!
In fact, the Sanatanics have in their own way given recognition to Lord Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu, though it is unclear which Lord Buddha that was, for there were many and it need not be Śākyamuni Siddhartha Gautama. But it is clear that the Sanatanics were not out to doing an "othering" of the Buddhists completely. Interestingly no Tirthankar of the Jains was given that honor.
Re: Hindus and Hinduism
Hindu: When the Islamics started their advance into the Subcontinent, they called all the inhabitants Hindus - and that included Sanatanics, Buddhists and Jains. They couldn't really care less who was who. We were all Hindus for them. There were Buddhist kings too who put up resistance against the Islamic onslaught. In the end they failed and fell, but they too were called Hindus by the Islamics. When Hindu became a badge of honor among the Bharatiyas as Vijaynagara Empire and Maratha Empire started referring to themselves as Hindus, should the Buddhist Kings who fell earlier protecting Bharat be deprived of this badge of honor - "Hindu"! Hindus refer to all Bharatiyas who resisted the Abrahamic onslaught - both of Islamics and British.
Hinduism: I define Hinduism as "A European discipline of study of the beliefs of the Hindus (Bharatiyas) with all the incurring prejudice and bias of White Racists, Christianists and Colonialists and later continued by Cultural Marxists". It is inexplicable why we Sanatanics are willing to call the beliefs of the Hindus as "Hinduism"! From the native PoV, what has this discipline of study to do with our self-defined beliefs. Are the Europeans going to decide what we believe in?
Just some thoughts!
