Hinduism was never one religion, and the collection of people who were called Hindus were never dogmatic about the identity of God, and never had a book that identified God for them.
Hindus were never (IMO) required to identify themselves as a religion and name their God until they were "challenged" by newer faiths like Christianity and Islam. I believe there was a reverse process of classifying Hindus as being "different" - pagans or kafirs whose Gods were "false". Hinduism, which is possibly a collection of animistic beliefs refined by some nifty life-theories, is non-unified in nature and does not commit itself to either rejecting God or accepting and identifying God as one defined entity. It allows laxity that is a threat to the disciplined dogma of Christianity and Islam. Hinduism allows for, and explains (in great detail) the means to achieve happiness and life without guilt for the worst offender, and a denier of God. To a person who has been taught that this is just plain wrong, Hindu belief is a problem. But to others, who get no joy from whatever they are taught to believe, Hindu laxity offers freedom of thought that might have been considered impossible in organized religion. I believe that Hinduism has brought a degree of morality among Hindus by collecting up folklore over the centuries that define what is right and what is wrong. However some of the stuff that is said to be right is not right. But then again all Hindu knowledge is offered "as is" in a "take it or leave it" manner. if you don't like it you can dump it. God will not, and cannot punish you for being yourself. shiv > I find it sometimes nice that Hinduism seems so all-embracing and > sometimes stifling...I too am working out whether I am really a Hindu > or not.
