Weekly page from Hindu Dharma: The Religion without a Name

[Guest guest]

This week's page from Hindu Dharma (see note at bottom) is "The Religion without

a Name" from "The Vedic Religion: Introductory". The original page can be found

at http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part2/chap1.htm.

 

Next week, you will be emailed "The Universal Religion" (from "The Vedic

Religion: Introductory")

 

Best regards

for kamakoti.org

 

 

Venkatesh

(this email is being sent on an automated basis)

 

The Religion without a Name

from The Vedic Religion: Introductory, Hindu Dharma

 

We speak of the "Hindu religion", but the religion denoted by the term did

not in fact have such a name originally. According to some, the word "Hindu"

means "love"; according to some others a Hindu is one who disapproves of himsa

or violence. This may be an ingenious way of explaining the word.

 

In none of our ancient sastras does the term "Hindu religion" occur. The name

"Hindu" was given to us by foreigners. People from the West came to our land

across the Sindhu river which they called "Indus" or "Hind" and the land

adjacent to it by the name "India". The religion of this land came to be called

"Hindu". The name of a neighbouring country is sometimes applied to the land

adjacent to it. Let me tell you an interesting story in this connection.

 

In the North people readily give alms to anybody calling himself a bairagi. The

bairagis have a grievance against Southerners because they do not follow the

same practice. "iIlai po po kahe Telungi" is one of their ditties. "Telugus do

not say "po, po" but "vellu" for "go, go". "Po" is a Tamil word. Then how would

you explain the line quoted above? During their journey to the South, the

bairagis had first to pass through the Telugu country (Andhra); so they thought

that the land further south also belonged to the Telugus.

 

There is the same logic behind the Telugus themselves referring to Tamil Nadu

as "Arava Nadu" from the fact that a small area south of Andhra Prades is called

"Arva". Similarly, foreigners who came to the land of the Sindhu called all

Bharata beyond also by the same name.

 

However it be, "Hinduism" was not the name of our religion in the distant past.

Nor was it known as "Vaidika Mata" (Vedic religion or as "sanatana dharma" ( the

ancient or timeless religion). Our basic texts do not refer to our faith by any

name. When I thought about it I felt that there was something deficient about

our religion.

 

One day, many years ago, someone came and said to me: "Ramu is here. " At once

I asked somewhat absent-mindedly: "Which Ramu? " Immediately came the reply : "

Are there many Ramus? " Only then did it occur to me that my question, "Which

Ramu? ", had sprung from my memory of the past. There were four people in my

place bearing the name of "Ramu". So, to tell them apart, we called them "Dark

Ramu". When there is only one Ramu around there is no need to give him a

distinguishing label.

 

It dawned on me at once why our religion had no name. When there are a number

of religions they have to be identified by different names. But when there is

only one, where is the problem of identifying it?

 

All religions barring our own were established by single individuals.

"Buddhism" means the religion founded by Gautama Buddha. Jainism was founded by

the Jina called Mahavira. So has Christianity its origin in Jesus Christ. Our

religion predating all these had spread all over the world. Since there was no

other religion to speak about then it was not necessary to give it a name. When

I recognised this fact I felt at once that there was no need to be ashamed of

the fact that our religion had no name in the past. On the contrary, I felt

proud about it.

 

If ours is primeval religion, the question arises as to who established it. All

inquiries into this question have failed to yield an answer. Was it Vyasa, who

composed the Brahmasutra, the founder of our religion? Or was it Krsna

Paramatman who gave us the Bhagavadgita? But both Vyasa and Krsna state that the

Vedas existed before them. If that be the case, are we to point to the rsis, the

seers who gave us the Vedic mantras, as the founders of our religion? But they

themselves declare: " We did not create the Vedas. " When we chant a mantra we

touch our head with our hand mentioning the name of one seer or another. But the

sages themselves say: "It is true that the mantras became manifest to the world

through us. That is why we are mentioned as the 'mantra rsis'. But the mantras

were not composed by us but revealed to us. When we sat meditating with our

minds under control, the mantras were perceived by us in space. Indeed we saw

them (hence the term mantra-drastas). We did n!

ot compose them. "[the seers are not "mantra-kartas". ]

 

All sounds originate in space. From them arose creation. According to science,

the cosmos was produced from the vibrations in space. By virtue of their

austerities the sages had the gift of seeing the mantras in space, the mantras

that liberate men from this creation. The Vedas are apauruseya (not the work of

any human author) and are the very breath of the Paramatman in his form as

space. The sages saw them and made a gift of them to the world.

 

If we know this truth, we have reason to be proud of the fact that we do not

know who founded our religion. In fact we must feel happy that we have the great

good fortune to be heirs to a religion that is eternal, a religion containing

the Vedas which are the very breath of the Paramatman.

 

 

 

Note:

Hindu Dharma is a translation of two volumes of the well known Tamil Book

"Deivatthin Kural", which, in turn, is a book of 6 volumes that contains talks

of His Holiness Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Mahaswamiji of Kanchipuram.

The entire book is available online at http://www.kamakoti.org/ .