One of you nice people recently clarified to me that our use of the term "the Hindu religion" is incorrect. I think you said "Hindu" was a name popularized by the British occupying forces for the Indian people west of the Indus River. That the "Hindu" people have had many faiths over the millennia and that they overlap to an extent. That Buddhism was "the Hindu religion" for a long time and that it still has almost as much claim to that title as those that focus on Ganesha or Shiva (forgive me if those random references don't make sense). Then I read the article in today's Washington Post about the Angkor Wat temple. It's being loved to death: tourists are overwhelming the world's largest religious structure and putting more wear on it than it's suffered in 1100 years. According to the article, the surrounding city of Angkor, which once had a population of one million, "started as a Hindu city, and turned to Buddhism in later centuries. Its religious life always included a strong dose of animism as well." The city in Cambodia that for centuries dominated the culture and politics of Southeast Asia--a Hindu city? From the rest of the text, I don't believe the writer meant that it was populated by people from India. He surely meant that it was "Hindu" in its religion, and he's even drawn the line between Hinduism and Buddhism. I realize that the writer, Anthony Faiola, is no religious scholar. But neither am I. So I am now thoroughly confused. What does "Hindu" mean when referring to religion, or to a religion, or to a group of religions? If it's the wrong word--or even worse, disrespectful--what is the right word? Or does it just illustrate our ignorance of India? And does the fact that I've never heard an Indian object to our usage illustrate my hypothesis: that polytheistic cultures generally tolerate diversity and thereby foster the advancement of civilization, in a way that monotheistic cultures, with their philosophy of "We and only we are right, dammit," generally do not? Not that my hypothesis needs more illustration lately than the front page of any newspaper.
Hinduism refers (currently) to all religions based on the Vedas. Some Hindus believe that Gautama Buddha was a reincarnation of Vishnu (one of the HIndu trinity) and accept Buddhists as Hindus. However Buddhists may not necessarily embrace that opinion.
actually it was the muslims basically there are three historical periods - in ancient history the term hindu was non-existent (it doesn't appear in any vedic literature) - in medieval history it was introduced by the invading muslims - it was kind of a derogatory term - the local inhabitants identified themselves as hindus when they were before the muslim overlords, but in their own personal dealings they never used it - kind of like if a big powerful person starts calling you charlie when your name is actually bob you start to respond to the name charlie - in contemporary times, the british were partially successful in homogenizing vedic culture - mainly by drawing up the syllabuses for academia in india - this was ironically compounded by the independence movement of india where you had all sorts of charismatic and quasi religious personalities boldly declaring for people to patriotically identify as a hindu for political unity there are different disciplines based on interpretations of the vedas and they come into vogue at particular times in particular circumstances buddha actually rejected the vedas - but the catch is that his incarnation is indicated in the vedas - specifically his task was to deliver the atheists - still, for practical purposes a "hindu" wouldn't worship buddha, since one would have to reject the vedas to properly follow his instruction - that said a hindu would certainly offer lord buddha their respect (you can even find devotional songs that glorify buddha in hinduism - but thats about as far as it goes) the vedic culture was previously spread all over that area - and according to the vedas the entire world too probably a mix of all three - actually its the opinion of contemporary religious scholars that hinduism is more of an orthopraxy (focus on the performance of ritual) rather than orthodoxy (focus on a philosophical conclusion), so it makes the whole analyisis of the contemporary situation a bit tricky. in terms of what the muslims actually perceived when they were crossing the indus river so many years ago, you could probably say they were seeing varnashramites .... in other words the regular daily performances of duty by a cross section of society socialized around vedic scriptures vedic culture is traditionally quite tolerant and could cater for a wide variety of persons at different levels of spiritual and material advancement- and its still there to a degree in india
Hinduism is the oldest religion, but it is also the youngest if you consider it is a living and evolving religion. The basic tenets being that one can never understand the great illusion that is creation, that God is omnipresent and that God keeps incarnating in various forms and shapes is what keeps it reinventing itself. Given the openness, the evolution and adaption of some such pieces of Hinduism can be in completely opposite directions, and has to be understood in the spirit than the letter. A Hindu is comfortable visiting a church or a dargah, and has no guilt in doing so, given that the principle is that God comes in different forms at different times - Allah or Jesus not excluded. A much revered incarnation of recent times, Shirdi Sai Baba is actually either a muslim or has grown as a muslim. As for the word "Hindu", in whatever context it originated, it does not carry any negative connotation right now. Just the way words get bad connotations over time (say the disrespectful 'prostitute'), this one has lost any negative touch, if it had some at any point of time. And despite the history, hinduism is very much a religion today, though it is not too easy to fit into a frame.
And don't forget the rituals adapt themselves depending on situation - nothing is set in stone! And the underlying philosophy is most often appreciated than not.
Light: I was under the impression the word "hindu" originated from the word "sindhu" which was what the Moghals called the people east of the Indus river?
Yes, and I haven't heard of negative connotation to 'Hindu'. I thought even the Moghuls prided in ruling 'Hindusthan'?!
therefore god is constantly re-establishing orthodoxy in the material world BG 4.8: To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium. The Buddha in Hindu scriptures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu That's correct - the "s" got pronounced as a "h" Of course it is not a derogatory term now - its just like examining the origins of many words that start off as colloquialisms and the like
