-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
are Saivism / Vaishnavism part of Hinduism or indipendent religions ?
- Thread starter Vedic
- Start date
Vedic
Member
hey, @LuisDantas we can not discuss/debate religions inDirs, can u please move this topic to here ?
Personally, I think it is misleading to treat god beliefs as a significant element of any religion.
Such beliefs are just way too personal in nature. There is little to no external significance on whether a Sanatana Dharmi believes Shiva or Vishnu to be an Adi-Veda (I hope this to be the correct term), or even whether they believe in them as deities at all as opposed to symbolic concepts.
If anything, the distinction between a "supreme" and a "non-supreme" deity is even more questionable. And again, if we are considering a scope beyond the strictly personal, the significance is dilluted that much further.
It seems to me that those are simply not very important matters for any religion. Certainly not for Hinduism, which has a long and solid tradition of practices and transmission lineages to sustain its doctrine.
Hinduism IMO is more honest with itself than some other religions in that it basically accepts as a matter of fact that people will have different emphasis and understandings, even when they are nominally of the exact same tradition. Religious attainment is measured not by conformance, but by the ability to express the Dharma on one's own terms and predict and take responsibility for the consequences, both practical and theological.
It is entirely possible and even likely for people that hold sharply contrasting views on the roles and even literal existence of (in the OP's example) Shiva and Vishnu to end up having very similar religious practices, because religion is not about deity-belief; rather, deity-belief is a traditional resource used with greater or lesser success and discernment by various religions for their teachings and practice.
And because Hinduism accepts such variation of teachings as part of its premise in the first place - to the point that it took the longest time to even think of itself as a religion, I am told - it is also (expected to be?) resilient to internal divisions due to matters of scripture and god conceptions. The religion is simply not defined in those terms to begin with.
One could of course decree that the differences are significant, just as one could decide that every Guru lineage or even every individual Hindu holds his own separate religion. That would not be wrong IMO, but it is not the usual division criterium either.
In short, the boundaries are where one wants to perceive them.
Such beliefs are just way too personal in nature. There is little to no external significance on whether a Sanatana Dharmi believes Shiva or Vishnu to be an Adi-Veda (I hope this to be the correct term), or even whether they believe in them as deities at all as opposed to symbolic concepts.
If anything, the distinction between a "supreme" and a "non-supreme" deity is even more questionable. And again, if we are considering a scope beyond the strictly personal, the significance is dilluted that much further.
It seems to me that those are simply not very important matters for any religion. Certainly not for Hinduism, which has a long and solid tradition of practices and transmission lineages to sustain its doctrine.
Hinduism IMO is more honest with itself than some other religions in that it basically accepts as a matter of fact that people will have different emphasis and understandings, even when they are nominally of the exact same tradition. Religious attainment is measured not by conformance, but by the ability to express the Dharma on one's own terms and predict and take responsibility for the consequences, both practical and theological.
It is entirely possible and even likely for people that hold sharply contrasting views on the roles and even literal existence of (in the OP's example) Shiva and Vishnu to end up having very similar religious practices, because religion is not about deity-belief; rather, deity-belief is a traditional resource used with greater or lesser success and discernment by various religions for their teachings and practice.
And because Hinduism accepts such variation of teachings as part of its premise in the first place - to the point that it took the longest time to even think of itself as a religion, I am told - it is also (expected to be?) resilient to internal divisions due to matters of scripture and god conceptions. The religion is simply not defined in those terms to begin with.
One could of course decree that the differences are significant, just as one could decide that every Guru lineage or even every individual Hindu holds his own separate religion. That would not be wrong IMO, but it is not the usual division criterium either.
In short, the boundaries are where one wants to perceive them.
are Saivism / Vaishnavism part of Hinduism or indipendent religions ?
I see them as different schools inside the Hindu University.
I see them as different schools inside the Hindu University.
I see them as different religions. Honestly, "Hinduism" is just an umbrella term for a bunch of different religions that have some things in common, but aren't the same. Shaktism is certainly not the same religion as Vaishnavism, for example. A similar thing went on in the Hellenic world.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There is no such term as Adi-Veda, Luis. Of course, Swami Dayananda Sarswati established 'Arya Samaj' (1875) which claims to follow the Vedic religion but it totally distorts the meaning of Vedas to suit its practices.One can be a Shiava, a Vaishnava, a Shakta, a Smarta or an atheist in the same Hindu family and be very comfortable. Only a matter of choosing the personal deity or sometimes even rejecting the idea of a deity as in my case.
Luis, that is a beautiful sentence you have written: "In short, the boundaries are where one wants to perceive them."
The problem is the point from where you are making the observation.
That is an Abrahamic view-point which does not allow differences.Religion for us is 'dharma' - conduct, and not the worship of a particular deity.
It'd work better like that if the traditions were more discrete. But it's all so damn fuzzy
, another former Abrahamic complaining!
Last edited:
They're both. Different flavors of the same source, But each with their own identity as well.
@Aupmanyav : I take it that you are aware of the overblown controversies about whether Trinitarianism is "polytheism in disguise", or whether ancestor worship is deification, or whether Catholics are not "true" monotheists because they worship Mary.
It all seems weird to me, because the implication is that the sacred is expected to not only be rigidly contained into very specific personifications, but also that it s Very Important that those should be countable and that there is no ambiguity whatsover in what the final count is.
Unless I am missing something, that results in millions of people who claim belief in the transcendencal creator of existence itself, all the while insisting that it must be bound to quantity expectations.
Apparently, while even a cheap keyring may count as either one or three depending on one's perspective without any sort of misleading being at play, God is not allowed to be conceived or understood diffently according to the person. Theism can be so strange.
It all seems weird to me, because the implication is that the sacred is expected to not only be rigidly contained into very specific personifications, but also that it s Very Important that those should be countable and that there is no ambiguity whatsover in what the final count is.
Unless I am missing something, that results in millions of people who claim belief in the transcendencal creator of existence itself, all the while insisting that it must be bound to quantity expectations.
Apparently, while even a cheap keyring may count as either one or three depending on one's perspective without any sort of misleading being at play, God is not allowed to be conceived or understood diffently according to the person. Theism can be so strange.
Vedic
Member
vishnavas say that Vishnu is Sureme, Iscon says that Krishna is Supreme, Shivites says that Shiva is Supreme and Rig Veda says that Indra is Supreme,.Yeah, we have the problem of Supreme with Vishnu and Krishna, but are somehow managing. I understand the problems with Christianity and Islam also to some extent.