What is Hindu?

[Guest learner singh]

Writer: Anonymous

We must remember that the term "hindu" is not even Sanskrit. It is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for "Hinduism." We must also remember how the name "hindu" was first developed. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indus, deleting the beginning "S", which was easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.

Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. The name "Hindu" was then used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River (the modern Indus) is located, and the region itself was called "Hindustan." Because the Sanskrit sound of "S" converts to "H" in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as "hindu," even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name "hindu" themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who use it out of convenience.

The real confusion started when the name "Hinduism" was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the words

"Hindu" and "Hinduism" was used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as "Hindus". This was done with the rather successful intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was in accord with the British divide and rule policy to make it easier for their continued dominion over the country.

Therefore, in any way you look at it, the name "Hindu" started simply as a bodily and regional designation. It is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that was called "Hinduism" until the Indian people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.

Unfortunately, the word "hindu" has gradually been adopted by most everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general way, so much so, in fact, that now "Hinduism" is often used to describe anything from religious activities to even Indian social or nationalistic events. Some of these so-called "Hindu" events are not endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a "Hindu" and still be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism, and thoughtlessly be considered a part of the true Vedic culture.

The Vedic spiritual path is called sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Following the principles of sanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining our forgotten relationship with the Supreme Lord. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all Vedic literature, such as Lord Krishna's message in Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the Upanishads

and Puranas, are not limited to only "Hindus," but are actually meant for the whole world. It is also the fully developed spiritual philosophy that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is a "universal spiritual truth" which can be applied by all people, in any part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name "Hindu" implies, especially after understanding from where the name comes. Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hinduism (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth, there will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt then that He will use the name "Hindu." He certainly said nothing of the sort when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

Thus, although I do not feel that "Hindu" is a proper term to represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part of everyone's vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label of "Hindu" and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus begin to use this term of sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of the Vedic path.

[V]

Interesting article

I know that this is true

but do u have any reference I can show to to a few Hindus ?

thanks

[MokhamSingh]

The word Hindu is not mentioned in any ancient Sanskrit scriptures. The word Hindu can be found in the old Persian dictionaries. The definition of the word Hindu, in the Persian dictionary is very derogatory, to say the least...

[MokhamSingh]

Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chor [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” 

In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). 

So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.