Interesting article from kamakoti.org

[Guest guest]

Namaste, The following is today's article from

kamakoti.org. (You can to it if you want by

going to the website)

 

regards,

Shailendra

 

 

 

The Religion without a Name from 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 Pradesh 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

Bhagavad-Gita? 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 not

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.

 

 

 

 

__

Start your day with - make it your home page

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Shailendraji,

 

Thanks for sharing this excellent and very thoughtful article.

 

Regards

 

Madhav

 

 

 

 

Check out India Rakhi Special for Rakhi shopping, contests and lots more.

http://in.promos./rakhi/index.html