![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/RVNcDou.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By Dayananda Das<\/strong><\/p>\n The words \u201creligion\u201d and \u201cHindu\u201d are problematic. Both are confusing, inaccurate, and not useful words.<\/p>\n Religion<\/p>\n Depending on the context, the use of the word religion can be ill-defined and even offensive\u2014for example, when someone says that religions cause all wars or when someone says, \u201cScience is logic; religion is belief.\u201d <\/p>\n These two statements are ignorant because the person using the word religion has defined it in an arbitrary manner when in fact the word religion defies definition and thus should not be seriously used. <\/p>\n The Wikipedia article on religion quotes the following from various scholars: \u201cReligion is a modern Western concept. Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages. Hindus (we\u2019ll get to that later), Buddhists, and Jains use the word dharma. This is a complex word, although Indian languages today simply translate it as religion, because there\u2019s no English word for it. Dharma means \u201ca set of principles with a corresponding set of responsibilities.\u201d Thus, it can be translated as laws (principles), duty (responsibility), or the nature of a thing (set of innate principles).<\/p>\n Also, dharma can mean the teaching or set of principles that someone like Buddha, Krishna, or Mahavira (Jainism) imparts.<\/p>\n Thus, the Oxford Dictionary definition of religion, \u201ca belief in and worship of God\u201d seriously limits the concept of dharma. They aren’t the same. Such a definition doesn\u2019t consider that dharma involves principles and responsibilities. Dharma is much more complex than belief and worship. Dharma implies that the principles and responsibilities are those of nature, both the nature of this world and that of the next. <\/p>\n Also, to say that religion is belief implies some latitude. With dharma, there is no latitude. One must follow dharma, because it is a set of principles of nature. For example, we don\u2019t believe fire is hot. We know. We don\u2019t believe killing is wrong. We know. These are both principles of nature. In modern Western terms, the nature of fire is considered in the realm of science whereas killing is in the realm of morality. However, dharma categorizes them both as natural principles. <\/p>\n Of course, philosophers often discuss what constitutes dharma; however, it\u2019s a serious discussion of the nature of things and it\u2019s not necessarily limited to belief in God and worship of Him.<\/p>\n In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna teaches about dharma. He says it\u2019s pratyak\u1e63\u0101vagama\u1e41 dharmya\u1e41–the dharma that\u2019s directly perceived. Krishna protects and upholds that dharma. He says dharma-sa\u1e41sth\u0101pan\u0101rth\u0101ya sambhav\u0101mi yuge yuge\u2014\u201cI appear from time to time to reestablish and maintain dharma.\u201d<\/p>\n That dharma is complex. It includes the principles of karma yoga, jnana yoga, bhakti yoga, and much more. And there are corresponding responsibilities with those principles. Too much to discuss here. <\/p>\n In sum, the dharma that Krishna describes is about the nature of the world\u2014bondage\u2014and how to become liberated from that bondage.<\/p>\n Thus, Krishna\u2019s dharma is much more complex and nuanced than \u201cbelief in and worship of God.\u201d <\/p>\n Hinduism<\/p>\n The word Hindu means the people of India. The two words, Hindu and India are derived from the same source. <\/p>\n The idea that \u201cHindu\u201d could mean a \u201creligion\u201d or a dharma, as in Hindu dharma, is simply wrong. <\/p>\n Hindu is a foreign word related to the Persian word Hind. The words Hind and India mean the same thing in different languages. Similarly, Indian and Hindu mean the same. In fact, in the Spanish language an Indian may be called either an indio or an hind\u00fa. <\/p>\n Thus, the word Hindu should not be used for any religion.<\/p>\n To say \u201cHindu\u201d literally implies all the religions of India including Jainism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. Of course, that\u2019s ridiculous, so nobody would even consider such a thing.<\/p>\n However, some people think that it\u2019s fine to lump Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Smartas, Shaivas, etc. into one religion: Hindu. That\u2019s also not good. They are separate dharmas. They have different scriptures. They have different systems of worship, different philosophies, and different deities.<\/p>\n In many ways, Vaishnavas are more distant from Shaivas than Jews are from Christians. Vaishnavas have less in common with Shaktas than Moslems have with Jews. <\/p>\n So, to continue the analogy, if there is one Hindu religion then there is one Semitic religion. All Jews, Moslems, and Christians are practicing the same religion because they originated on the Arab peninsula, believe in Abraham and Moses, worship the same God, and have scriptures with similar histories and theological concepts.<\/p>\n Of course, such an idea would be anathema to most Jews, Christians, and Moslems. I\u2019m not suggesting they be categorized as one religion. I\u2019m saying the idea is absurd, and it\u2019s also absurd to lump several dharmas together and call them \u201cHindu.\u201d <\/p>\n Now, to change the subject slightly, consider this: In the 19th century, Christians used the word Muhammadan. Today, most English speakers use the word Moslem, which is the preferred term. Also, they don\u2019t say Muhammadanism. They correctly say Islam.<\/p>\n Yet Indians continue to accept the old vestiges of foreign domination by allowing use of the word Hindu. <\/p>\n Hindu means someone from India. That is a bodily designation. It has nothing to do with the soul, which is separate from the body. The celestial sage Narad emphasized sarvopadhi-vinirmuktam\u2014one must become free from such bodily designations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The words \u201creligion\u201d and \u201cHindu\u201d are problematic. Both are confusing, inaccurate, and not useful words. Religion: Depending on the context, the use of the word religion can be ill-defined and even offensive\u2014for example, when someone says that religions cause all wars or when someone says, \u201cScience is logic; religion is belief.\u201d These two statements are ignorant because the person using the word religion has defined it in an arbitrary manner when in fact the word religion defies definition and thus should not be seriously used.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=85477"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":104800,"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85477\/revisions\/104800"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=85477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=85477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dandavats.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=85477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\u201c\u2026there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
\u201c[Some] argue that regardless of its definition, it is not appropriate to apply it to non-Western cultures.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"Hare](\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/-aYTbfPprRWk\/W12lfxFu8iI\/AAAAAAAAl44\/tLRifoIoj8sHFYZcQLGtCr1wvZkbG4e1QCHMYCw\/s0\/2018-07-29_13-31-09.jpg\")
By Dayananda Das<\/strong><\/p>\n