Hinduism

There is no Hinduism.

"Hindu" was a term the Persians gave to those who lived in the Indus Valley because they couldn't properly pronounce "Sindhu".

Hinduism is about as valid as Abrahamism

>>1808868
The word "Hindu" is never found in Vedic texts. Furthermore, the proper word to use for those people who follow the Scriptures of The Vedas is "Sanatana Dharma", not "Hinduism" as is commonly used.

>>1808868
>>1808875
>>1808876
Would it be more appropriate to call them vedics?

What is their history? What do they believe?

>>1808983
>Vedics

Cardassian occupation best 60 years of my life

>>1808983
No, the religion and philosophy has moved on and in many cases diverged significantly. There are 6 orthodox schools of thought, and 3 or 4 unorthodox ones (one of which is Buddhism).

Think of the religion as a collection of spiritual/superstitious practices, with philosophies, and the two are linked but not totally dependent (thought obviously cannot conflict). Different schools of thought may conflict, but the general idea is that its a philosophical issue, and that both parties are adhering to the Dharma in general, and hence shouldn't be hostile. Hence, the general syncretism seen in India.

The Vedas are just one part of this complex and diverse set of ideas, and only the 'birthplace' of the system.

>>1809078
Interesting. What literature would you recommend for someone trying to understand Dharmic religion. Also what type(s) of meditation is generally practiced in Hindu circles?

File: IMG_2983.jpg (47KB, 400x397px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x397px

>>1809028
Friendly reminder that Dukat did nothing wrong.

>>1809263
Gul Darheel was a real Cardassian bean.

REMOVE HASPERAT remove hasperat

>>1809263
sexual organs etc

>>1808876
>Sanatana Dharma
If you wanna be extremely technical then yeah, Hindu refers to people beyond the Indus. Whereas their beliefs are Sanatana Dharma.
But the name of the "race" and the religion have become synonymous with one another because they've been of that belief system for all history and they don't proselytize so nobody else is.

>>1809259
There's a lot of angles to approach the subject from (Anthro/Historical, Religious. Western vs. Indian) but I think best for this is "Hindu Dharma: The Universal Way of Life". It is a little geared towards Indians in its presentation, but most western books on the subject are shit desu. For an overview on rituals, meditation, and how Indians actually practice the philosophy, try "Meeting God: Elements of Hindu Devotion"; its Western but thats a good thing - it explains the diversity of practices and has some great photography.

>>1809368
Not even the geographic term, but the term 'Hindu' in modern usage isn't quite the western concept of religion. Are Buddhists Hindus? The general consensus is yes, even though they are nastika (heterodox), hence not followers of the true Sanatana Dharma. The same goes for any person with spiritual/cultural values in line with the Indian Dharma - they are to be considered Hindu. I myself am Zoroastrian, but consider myself Hindu in this sense. This definition is most noticeable in Hindutva for example.

Obviously though, the term is colloquially used to denote the religion. But I just wanted to point out that even in the modern usage, though not geographic in nature, 'Hindu' means something other than simply religion.

>>1809456
Are Buddhist Hindus?

It really depends on the individuals

Buddha rejected the idea of Brahman or supreme soul (God)

However many self identifying buddhists do believe in Hindu and local animist gods

To a qualify as Hindu I think you just have to believe in the Trimurti, or atleast of of the Trimurti and thier derivative forms as manifestations of the Devine

>>1809525
>To a qualify as Hindu I think you just have to believe in the Trimurti, or atleast of of the Trimurti and thier derivative forms as manifestations of the Devine
you think wrong then. I am a nastik and I consider myself hindu. The trimurti isn't present in the vedas which are intrinsic parts of hindu thought.

>>1809548
What's a nastik

But in later Hinduism the Trimurti Trump's the vedic gods completely.

I remeber Lord Vishnu(Krishna) saying the flowery words of the Vedas is BS.

People who only believe in Vedas are Vedicists or something else

>>1809525
I don't think you understand the definition of the term 'Hindu' as myself and >>1809548 are using it, and how Hindutva uses it.

>Buddha rejected the idea of Brahman or supreme soul (God)
Which makes him nastik, but still Hindu. Look up the term if you don't know its meaning.

>>1809558
You are using the word 'Hindu' in the conventional way, meaning the mainstream type of Indian religion. The point is, those 'vedicists' (for example Arya Samaj in modern times) are definitely considered Hindu, and hence the need for a less strict, and more conforming definition of 'Hinduness' for Indian culture, given the wide variety of beliefs, that still have some overall coherence in Dharma.

>>1809259
I think "bhagwad gita" should be a simple but end all be all book if you want to know about hinduism but not invest time heavily.
Although there is no single book which defines or lays out the rules like in abrahamic religions, 'hinduism' has a form of debate in its nature, at least its supposed to be and was in the past.

Coming to the referred book, it is widely regarded as the bible of hinduism and it probably is true more or less, it follows from the middle of the story of mahabharat where arjun hesitates to wage a war against his brothers and teacher and then his chariot driver krishna takes his real 'god' form and tells him why war is necessary.