3 ms·

actually, there is no such thing as a "Hindu" per se. And it is here that Hinduism (as an overall politico-sociological concept) differs a lot from traditional

actually, there is no such thing as a "Hindu" per se. And it is here that Hinduism (as an overall politico-sociological concept) differs a lot from traditional christianity or islam. there is no singular book. South Indian "hindus" dont believe in a lot of texts that the north indian "hindus" do including the mahabharata. The interpretation of the vyas ramayana and the south indian Kamba Ramayanam are different. In general, the ramayana and the mahabharata are two epics, and thereby occupy a singificant mindshare in popular culture - so you can argue that it is pan-Indian. But if we veer away from them and go into other books, the differences are even more stark. I actually love this part of "hinduism" - the fact that there is no "one-true-way" has given rise to a whole bunch of fairly conflicting theology that is really interesting. For example, explaining Advaita non-dualism to a conventional "hindu" is really interesting - because the concepts of the Gita are thrown out of the window (a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller).

srean 12y ago
Spot on, and this is precisely what I find fascinating about it. Quoting from an old comment of mine: To me striking things about its body of thought are its philosophical roots, the fact that they have been thinking deeply about such questions since antiquity,.. and that not believing in any form of god is perfectly acceptable. ... for people coming from an Abrahamic religion, its a difficult thing to grasp. Hinduism is not 'a religion' if one goes by the notion of a religion in Abarahamic religions. It is worse than trying to map git commands to subversion. Its a very different beast, it is a meta religion (or more accurately a diverse collection of a very large body of thought and introspection, originating from a geographical region and built over time, that visitors clubbed into a single pool because they werent sure what to make of it). It is more like a religion factory pattern for building your own religion that includes questions you should keep visiting in that process, and a more fundamental one, why at all (and when) should one even consider building one. It lays down thought processes, questions that one should consider and critique when one is forming ones own parameterized religion. People get confused whether they are talking about the polymorphic class or the object instance. > a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller Not only that, you may completely ignore everything that is in the Gita and still be a Hindu. As long as your belief system is not in conflict with the Vedic philosophy you have a perfectly legit claim to be one. And this gives you enormous amounts of personal space to form your own set of rules and live by them. I am sure you would know but for the benfit of those unfamiliar with the details, the 'Bhakti' that the article talks about is very much a post Gita thing, had little to no role in Hinduism prior to it. This "one book" obsession is very much an Abrahamic response to try and map something unfamiliar to something familiar. I find it quite amusing.
- sandGorgon 12y ago
  having said that, I would like to point out that the "Hindu" word referred to in India's current political climate is indeed a very dangerous thing and does veer fairly close to the "one book" theory. For all it's faults - I cannot say that Doninger's book ought to have banned for offending sentiments. Very, very sad.

srean 12y ago

Spot on, and this is precisely what I find fascinating about it. Quoting from an old comment of mine: To me striking things about its body of thought are its philosophical roots, the fact that they have been thinking deeply about such questions since antiquity,.. and that not believing in any form of god is perfectly acceptable. ... for people coming from an Abrahamic religion, its a difficult thing to grasp. Hinduism is not 'a religion' if one goes by the notion of a religion in Abarahamic religions. It is worse than trying to map git commands to subversion. Its a very different beast, it is a meta religion (or more accurately a diverse collection of a very large body of thought and introspection, originating from a geographical region and built over time, that visitors clubbed into a single pool because they werent sure what to make of it). It is more like a religion factory pattern for building your own religion that includes questions you should keep visiting in that process, and a more fundamental one, why at all (and when) should one even consider building one. It lays down thought processes, questions that one should consider and critique when one is forming ones own parameterized religion. People get confused whether they are talking about the polymorphic class or the object instance. > a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller Not only that, you may completely ignore everything that is in the Gita and still be a Hindu. As long as your belief system is not in conflict with the Vedic philosophy you have a perfectly legit claim to be one. And this gives you enormous amounts of personal space to form your own set of rules and live by them. I am sure you would know but for the benfit of those unfamiliar with the details, the 'Bhakti' that the article talks about is very much a post Gita thing, had little to no role in Hinduism prior to it. This "one book" obsession is very much an Abrahamic response to try and map something unfamiliar to something familiar. I find it quite amusing.

sandGorgon 12y ago
having said that, I would like to point out that the "Hindu" word referred to in India's current political climate is indeed a very dangerous thing and does veer fairly close to the "one book" theory. For all it's faults - I cannot say that Doninger's book ought to have banned for offending sentiments. Very, very sad.