[manishsharan]

The fundamental ideas of Sikhism , Jainism and Buddism are not equivalent and Dharma in in each of these religions means aderence to their idea of the righteous way.These ideas are distinct and practitioner of these religions would dissmiss your theory of unified dharma. There are several Sikh scholars that I know of who could help you with your understanding of Sikhism and how it is different from Hinduism. However, a visit to a Sikh temple would be a better idea.

>>idea of Hinduism is nonexistent This assertion is breathtakingly arrogant . Granted that Hinduism does not fit neatly within the traditional Judeo Christian definition of religions but this is absurdly ignorant. The Brits and the Portugese tried tried very hard to erase Hinduism and failed.( The Portugese went so far to claim Hindus dont have souls -- but that is a discussions for another day). Please note that I do not speak for Hinduism but your assertions are too absurd to ignore.

To give you an analogy -- you are saying the idea of apples is nonexistent. There are RoyalDelicious, Gala, Honeycrisp etc etc, -- but there is no apple .

My initial objection was to crpto snake-oil salesmen using eastern sounding names to disguise their snake oil and sadly they will succeed until this baloon pops.

[thevardanian]

I never said that each were equivalent, I'm saying that they're using the same vocabulary to describe and translate their ideas. That's it.

That is to say there is no universal, central, or dogmatic theory of "dharma", nor perhaps a central agreed upon theory of Dharma, just a vague conception of what it is for each individual interpreter. Whether that interpreter be Buddha, Nanak, Shankaracarya, or the various other Indic philosophers is irrelevant. What unifies them simply is the technical language used to describe their philosophy, and define their own ideas.

So no. I'm not saying all religions in India are the same. All I'm saying is that the various philosophers within that geography used a similar set of vocabulary, and a similar set of ideas to construct their own thought structures in competition, opposition, or in general progression with each other.

So in that sense, there is at least something that makes them closer to each other than they are separate.

[manishsharan]

>> What unifies them simply is the technical language used to describe their philosophy, and define their own ideas

Nearly all religions use the same technical language to spread their ideas. Islam, Hinduism,Sikhism, Christianity -- all of them -- talk about God, meaning of life , yada yada yada. Does that make them closer and their philosophical differences trivial?

You had begun your argument by saying that the idea of Hinduism doesn't exist . Now you are claiming all religions are closer than they are separate. You are changing the subject.

Though I would agree that most adherents of any religion would not like their language to be used for selling Crypto hokum. If these guys had called themselves "Gospel protocol", almost everyone would see through them.

[thevardanian]

Here how about this. What do you think of the term "dharma" being used in the context of the corporate form/guilds in India? It is a well documented fact that Srenis would have to declare their Dharma by which they, and their members, had to abide by, and was sanctioned by the Monarch. This was simply called Sreni-Dharma.

Furthermore that's a false equivalence as they do not use the same vocabulary. I challenge you to find any of the Sanskrit based word in any other religions around the world other than the ones found in India, and no translations do not count. That is to say Indic religions have their own jargon.

So no. Not ALL religions are closer to each other. Just the ones in India. There's NOT a single unifying factor that united Indian religions. So yah. There's a great difference between Vaishnavs, Shaivites, Mimamska, Nyaya-kins, Shaivites in Kashmir, Tantrics of Himalayas, Lingayats, Arya-samaj, Bhakti, ISKON, etc. There's, I believe, literal thousands of philosophically nuanced schools of thought that are incredibly different from each other. So again, please tell me where Hindus are the same. Again the ONLY thing, remember, ONLY, is the vocabulary, ideas, etc. that these philosophically distinct ideas share. That's it.

[manishsharan]

>>It is a well documented fact that Srenis would have to declare their Dharma by which they, and their members, had to abide by, and was sanctioned by the Monarch. This was simply called Sreni-Dharma.

I am not sure as to how this is relevant. Shrenis were guilds and shrenidharma obviously refers to a code of conduct for members. This could have been relevant to use in this context except that it is clearly half assed attempt to use an ancient word. Dharma should have been used as suffix in this context; shrenidharma = guild + rules. Other exmaples of use are atithidharma, kuladharma etc... So not only are they appropriating "Dharma" to make themselves look cool, they are also using it incorrectly.

>>There's NOT a single unifying factor that united Indian religions...so again, please tell me where Hindus are the same

This is simply not true. Take tantra for example ( I am not sure about Himalayan Tantra ) Tantrik traditions and scriptures are derived from both Shaivites and and Vaishnavs, with neither schools laying exclusive claims on Tantrik tradtions. I am not alluding to Buddhist Mahayana 's tantrik traditions.

Arya Samaj grew as a reformation of the 19th century Hinduism. My grandfather was a Arya Samaji but not my grandmother who was a vaishnav. The one thing that western scholars of Hinduism often miss is the fluidity of devotion -- by that I mean Hindus are equally at ease in perfoming pujas of deities from diffent schools. In hindu households, you will find Rama, Shiva , Ganesha , Durga and Krishna and they would all be worshipped. The differences of interpretation of Geeta and Vedas are left to scholars to argue but to claim that they have nothing in common is just wild exaggeration.

[thevardanian]

Sikhs worship Shakti and Gurunanak makes references, even praises, "Hindu" gods, ideas, and symbols. Does that make them Hindus as well?

Furthermore, you do agree that Dharma isn't just a religious term. Right?

But I do agree with you on appropriation. Indians need to own the term, and define what it is, so that Sanskritic/Indic terms used in the west are well defined. In that sense a sort of sanskritization* of English can take place, just as there's a latinization of Indian languages.

[manishsharan]

Perhaps you are conflating the relationship between Sikhism and Hinduism with relationship between Vaishnavs and Shaivites. Sikhism categorically rejects Hinduism and I would respect their wishes. Vaishnavs, Shaivites, ISKON jostle/debate to be viewed as the true interpreters of the scriptures. They do not reject their relationship. And that makes them Hindus.