I have not come across the word Hindu in our oldest traditional texts.
As I understand, that word was used by Persians to call the people living beside the river Indus.
So is ‘Hinduism’ not defined in any of our old texts. My guess is that ‘Hinduism’ was coined by some Britisher.

Metaphorically speaking I see that as shackles made by somebody else. Shackles bearing the name ‘Hindu’ which is entirely undefined in our tradition.

By accepting to label ourselves as Hindu we begin to travel in paths untrodden by our ancestors- the sages who travelled this earth before us. And thus break away from our anscestors and make of ourselves orphans.

When we accept for ourselves a label that somebody else has given us, then we have to inevitably accept the definition they give us. And the definition they have chosen for us is definitely to suit them and in no way complementary to us. In their definition Sati, Child marriages, Caste oppression, bigotry, blind beliefs, superstitions, gender inequality, erotic sex, etc., are the customs that defines this ‘religion’ they call Hinduism.

These customs, I do not find in our texts. What I find in our texts is everything opposite of what they have defined.

That being so, are we not doing a great disservice to ourselves and future generations by calling ourselves by that name?

What I have come across in our scriptures is the sage calling himself as Brahma – ‘ Aham Brahmasmi, after achieving realisation. ‘I am Brahma- the supreme universal power.’
Which is the exact opposite of what the westerner defines his religion ‘ Hinduism’.

So if I have to call myself some name, let me call myself ‘Brahma’- the supreme universal truth- after self-realisation. Until then let me call myself ‘potential Brahma’. 

———————This post is based on comments posted elsewhere ———Thanks for reading