[Pitri Tarpana] - about definitions of "hindu"

[Guest guest]

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

> 1. "Hindu" - which I think is a word that was coined in early 19th

Century or by the Arabs. I am not sure. One thing is sure though. IT

IS NOT A WORD USED IN OLD INDIA TO DENOTE ANYTHING. And etymologically

it just means people of the land of Indus.

 

Most probably by muslims; although europeans developed this misconcept

LOL. Yes there is no such a thing existing as "hinduism" in fact. What

i mean by "hinduism" was a bundle of tradition who follow smritis.

 

> 2. What is now understood by the name "Hindu", in ancient days,

included everything from adwaitin to dwaitin to nihilists.

 

Not exactly i think. At least buddhist and jains were concidered to be

non-hindu by majority of ppl. I think all "nastika" systems were out

of "hindu" field. By "nastika" were meant those who didn`t accept

authority of smritis, never those who didn`t believe in God as some

think LOL.

Advaita or dvaita are just philosophical doctrines. We were speaking

about social dharma which is different. Whether one is dvaitin or

advaitin or whosoever he is going through samskaras if he is an

orthodox "smarta hindu".

 

> 3. Thus there is NO uniform code for "Hindu" as understood in

Judaism, christianity and Islam. {This is just my personal view eh?

(runs for cover)*smile*}

 

Yes in some sense. But if we take smarta religion (which was and is

socially dominating) it has "uniform code" - Dharma-shastras. And it

is illogical to take out of the whole body of samskaras and rituals

some ritual which one just liked! "Hinduism" is more a social life-

style than religion proper. If one is out of hindu society and out of

hindu-dharma (dharma based on commonly recognized Dharma-shastras and

Smriti in whole) he is unfit for rituals prescribed by smriti!

Also it is simply unnecessary for westerner to perform pitri-tarpana

or some other ritual of that kind - nobody demands that from him. Also

from point of view of Smriti all westerners are mlechchhas - they have

no right to perform ANY orthodox rituals. There are ONLY two options -

either one accepts hindu life style, passes through vrata-stoma,

namakarana and other needed samskaras and becomes hindu in orthodox

sense; or one follows some heterodox sect that accept non-hindus. That

may be tantrik tradition, neo-vedanta, some vaishnava etc. But in that

case one is unqualified for smarta rituals. Although in some sense he

is a "hindu" (`coz this word is used in rather different meanings).

 

> 4. There are samskaras and what not for each group. Some common and

some not so common. So there is no common rule on samskaras and what

not but there are common elements thats all.

 

There are samskaras prescibed by Smriti. If one has not passed through

them he cannot perform smarta rituals. It is so clear: everyone knows

that shudras cannot do rituals of orthodox hinduism, but at least

shudras are hindus by birth; in the case of westerner there is no

question of any kind of orthodox hindu practice. Of course nobody will

stop him if he does some rituals - but then it is an imitation that

has no legacy and no effect.

 

If but "not so common samskaras" U mean tantrik - the case differs.

But there is no pitri-tarpana in vama-tantra . [bTW for this reason

Kalika-purana, being in some sections rather pro-brahmanic, criticizes

vama-marga].

As Meru-tantra says "shUdrAdi yavanAntAnAM siddhir vAmapathe sthitA" -

"For [all unqualified for orthodox hindu practice] starting from

shudras and ending with westerners Success is gained in the left path

[of Tantra]".

 

A.

[Guest guest]

from my knowledge the name hindu came from 'alexander the great' when he was

trying to conquer asia. his soldiers couldnt cross the indus river as the

resistance of the army on the opposite side was really strong. he alexander the

great said on that day "those HINDU'S are really strong !!!!" and he returned to

his kingdom.

steve mohandas

 

Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote:

 

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

> 1. "Hindu" - which I think is a word that was coined in early 19th

Century or by the Arabs. I am not sure. One thing is sure though. IT

IS NOT A WORD USED IN OLD INDIA TO DENOTE ANYTHING. And etymologically

it just means people of the land of Indus.