Ask Madhuri a Question about Hinduism

[Rev Hydrogen]

OK, I had a look at BBC Religion webpage on Hinduism.
Hmm... any religion with a geographic uptake of over 80 percent
to me reeks of a command religion albeit one with reasonable
formulation of a creative power.

It seems that there are many many varieties and a branched dogma tree which indicates
to me massive uncertainty about the truth, notwithstanding some
great wisdom and philosophy.

To the adherents, the world view is that these 3 demi Gods exist
in the aspects of human behavior they are claimed to control?
EG Shivs responsible for desire and evil, imperfection etc.

To me, creation cannot be imperfect, as 'what is' is good, otherwise it could not be.

To the mystic this is poppycock way of looking at the agencies making up the human being. This muddling can only obfuscate the truth to the individual searcher subject.

Indian Hindus (EG my local shopkeeper friend) around these parts seem to have just as little idea of who/what they are as every other joe citizen. (generalizing here.)




Hydrogen Key
----------------

To figure out where Hindu lies please choose
one option from sections A and B?

(A) Is it? (choose one of 8 options )
----------------------------------------
Materialism
A1- Materialism -Reductionist view
A2- Materialism -Holistic view
Immaterialism
A3 Objective Immaterialism
A4 -Subjective Immaterialism
Neutral. (both Material and Immaterial = interchangeable)
A5 Neutral subjective reductionist.
A6 Neutral subjective holistic
A7 Neutral objective reductionist
A8 Neutral objective holistic ?


(B) Is it: (choose one of 11 options.)
-----------------------------------------
MONISM: only one type of thing.
-KIND Monism (One kind of thing)
(6 options with B5 & B6 reflecting creative agency)
B1 Vegetative model of origin EG seed
B2 Zoological model of origin eg Mating
B3 Condensation/ rarefaction model of origin
B4 Settling out model of origin
B5 Mason Mechanic model of origin
- complexes are produced and assembled by a designer.
B6 Potter Artist model of origin.
- Agent shapes new information to make new material
which may itself be subject to change.


-THING Monism (world/cosmos) IS 'a thing' (IE only one Thing)
2 options.
B7 Condensation/ rarefaction model of origin
B8 Settling out model of origin

B9 or DUALISM only 2 types of things:body & mind.

or PLURALISM Many kinds of things - complex world.
B10 All things are physical.
B11 A thing may be physical or non physical?

-------------------------------------------------------

 

[vistascan]

I have heard this once before, which is interesting. But where is it written? How do we know this?

I read about that in a translation of the Rig Veda I have. Also, there's this wiki article

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavadini

 

[vistascan]

OK, I had a look at BBC Religion webpage on Hinduism.
Hmm... any religion with a geographic uptake of over 80 percent
to me reeks of a command religion albeit one with reasonable
formulation of a creative power.

It seems that there are many many varieties and a branched dogma tree which indicates
to me massive uncertainty about the truth, notwithstanding some
great wisdom and philosophy.

To the adherents, the world view is that these 3 demi Gods exist
in the aspects of human behavior they are claimed to control?
EG Shivs responsible for desire and evil, imperfection etc.

To me, creation cannot be imperfect, as 'what is' is good, otherwise it could not be.

To the mystic this is poppycock way of looking at the agencies making up the human being. This muddling can only obfuscate the truth to the individual searcher subject.

Indian Hindus (EG my local shopkeeper friend) around these parts seem to have just as little idea of who/what they are as every other joe citizen. (generalizing here.)




Hydrogen Key
----------------

To figure out where Hindu lies please choose
one option from sections A and B?

(A) Is it? (choose one of 8 options )
----------------------------------------
Materialism
A1- Materialism -Reductionist view
A2- Materialism -Holistic view
Immaterialism
A3 Objective Immaterialism
A4 -Subjective Immaterialism
Neutral. (both Material and Immaterial = interchangeable)
A5 Neutral subjective reductionist.
A6 Neutral subjective holistic
A7 Neutral objective reductionist
A8 Neutral objective holistic ?


(B) Is it: (choose one of 11 options.)
-----------------------------------------
MONISM: only one type of thing.
-KIND Monism (One kind of thing)
(6 options with B5 & B6 reflecting creative agency)
B1 Vegetative model of origin EG seed
B2 Zoological model of origin eg Mating
B3 Condensation/ rarefaction model of origin
B4 Settling out model of origin
B5 Mason Mechanic model of origin
- complexes are produced and assembled by a designer.
B6 Potter Artist model of origin.
- Agent shapes new information to make new material
which may itself be subject to change.


-THING Monism (world/cosmos) IS 'a thing' (IE only one Thing)
2 options.
B7 Condensation/ rarefaction model of origin
B8 Settling out model of origin

B9 or DUALISM only 2 types of things:body & mind.

or PLURALISM Many kinds of things - complex world.
B10 All things are physical.
B11 A thing may be physical or non physical?

-------------------------------------------------------

What you call certainty, we call pigeonholing and dogma.

Also, if your only introduction to Hinduism is through a BBC website, you're still in the dark.

Your table to pigeonhole Hinduism will fail as we have a large number of views (Darsanas) existing simultaneously.

I suggest you do some deeper studies before declaring anything on the matter, as whatever you declare now will be with false and incomplete information

Thank you

 

[Gurtej]

Question is about what holds true in Hinduism. I have seems so much difference in opinion that it has become too flexible to meet everyone needs. I sorry but religious views should not change with time but they have.

But my question is which texts hold upmost importance in Hinduism? Is it
Vedas ?

 

[LuisDantas]

Question is about what holds true in Hinduism. I have seems so much difference in opinion that it has become too flexible to meet everyone needs. I sorry but religious views should not change with time but they have.

Interesting. I hold much the opposite view: It is because Hinduism is so flexible that it is the perhaps only major religion which may claim to be suitable to everyone's needs. Others are in some way or another basically self-forbidden from even attempting to.

Likewise, religious views must change with time, because the world that they apply to certainly does.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Except that this Hinduism isn't suitable to meet hardly anyone's needs because it's been perverted by the conceit of belief ("believe what suits me"), whereas beliefs have little to do with core Hindu Dharma. (And, of course, because people need beliefs like they need holes in a bucket.)

But uh... I think this, including my digression, is hijacking Madhuri's thread, which I am trying to restrain myself from doing (again.)

 

[vistascan]

Question is about what holds true in Hinduism. I have seems so much difference in opinion that it has become too flexible to meet everyone needs. I sorry but religious views should not change with time but they have.

But my question is which texts hold upmost importance in Hinduism? Is it
Vedas ?

Flexible as in thought structure and ability to accommodate a large number of ideas. No one suggests changing the texts as time progresses.

The Vedas are the most primary texts, also the Brahman Sutra. But I think sects like the Veerashaivas reject the authority of the Vedas

 

[Gurtej]

Interesting. I hold much the opposite view: It is because Hinduism is so flexible that it is the perhaps only major religion which may claim to be suitable to everyone's needs. Others are in some way or another basically self-forbidden from even attempting to.

Likewise, religious views must change with time, because the world that they apply to certainly does.

Hmmm... Ok this is my view..

I agree that everything change with time.. Person, animals , technology etc.. But what never change is the eternal truth.. And if there is one eternal truth then there is only way way to achieve it and that's the right way. The way to achieve god never change irrespective of what you or myself may like.

If a religion change itself or its philosophy to accommodate people needs then in my eyes it's shifting from its core. Realising god is not easy...

The system we live in can change to **** people feelings but that for me is not religion. Religion is the way to attain oneness with god and people may think they can do it the way they like but that's not true for me...

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmmm... Ok this is my view..

I agree that everything change with time.. Person, animals , technology etc.. But what never change is the eternal truth.. And if there is one eternal truth then there is only way way to achieve it and that's the right way. The way to achieve god never change irrespective of what you or myself may like.

Leaving aside for a moment your premise that there is a god, don't you agree that some people have different needs than others from a religious standpoint?

For an example, there are people who must develop patience and acceptance, while others must instead do the opposite and become more active and caring. Don't you agree?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Hmmm... Ok this is my view..

I agree that everything change with time.. Person, animals , technology etc.. But what never change is the eternal truth.. And if there is one eternal truth then there is only way way to achieve it and that's the right way. The way to achieve god never change irrespective of what you or myself may like.

If a religion change itself or its philosophy to accommodate people needs then in my eyes it's shifting from its core. Realising god is not easy...

The system we live in can change to **** people feelings but that for me is not religion. Religion is the way to attain oneness with god and people may think they can do it the way they like but that's not true for me...

This post may be relevant: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3036085-post2.html

Apologies again for the intrusion.

 

[Madhuri]

No need to hold back Shuddha!

 

[vistascan]

Hmmm... Ok this is my view..

I agree that everything change with time.. Person, animals , technology etc.. But what never change is the eternal truth.. And if there is one eternal truth then there is only way way to achieve it and that's the right way. The way to achieve god never change irrespective of what you or myself may like.

If a religion change itself or its philosophy to accommodate people needs then in my eyes it's shifting from its core. Realising god is not easy...

The system we live in can change to **** people feelings but that for me is not religion. Religion is the way to attain oneness with god and people may think they can do it the way they like but that's not true for me...

Right, and what happens when those instructions are lost?

Any religion based on a dogmatic single text/historical revelation will inevitably lose its legs if the text is lost.

The Dharma, as Suddasattva explained, is not dogmatic, and does not depend on the dogmatic texts or historical revelation.

Also, I fail to see how you reach that there is only one way to reach God. How do you support your proposition.

 

[Madhuri]

Interesting. I hold much the opposite view: It is because Hinduism is so flexible that it is the perhaps only major religion which may claim to be suitable to everyone's needs. Others are in some way or another basically self-forbidden from even attempting to.

Likewise, religious views must change with time, because the world that they apply to certainly does.

I agree Luis. I find the differences to be surface level, so that it meets the needs of all people but on the deeper and more important levels, all these paths merge.

 

[Madhuri]

If a religion change itself or its philosophy to accommodate people needs then in my eyes it's shifting from its core. Realising god is not easy...

The system we live in can change to **** people feelings but that for me is not religion. Religion is the way to attain oneness with god and people may think they can do it the way they like but that's not true for me...

I don't think that the philosophy changes in Hinduism over time, I think that interpretations change which can be seen in any religion. When it comes to the important aspects of Hindu philosophies, there is no incompatibility in my view. It is a religion that is flexible enough to allow people to choose a unique path to enlightenment and where any such path is legitimate and valid because of that universal underlying philosophies and principles.

 

[Madhuri]

To the adherents, the world view is that these 3 demi Gods exist
in the aspects of human behavior they are claimed to control?
EG Shivs responsible for desire and evil, imperfection etc.

To me, creation cannot be imperfect, as 'what is' is good, otherwise it could not be.

To the mystic this is poppycock way of looking at the agencies making up the human being. This muddling can only obfuscate the truth to the individual searcher subject.

Indian Hindus (EG my local shopkeeper friend) around these parts seem to have just as little idea of who/what they are as every other joe citizen. (generalizing here.)

I'm not sure that you've found correct information about Hinduism. Shiva isn't responsible for 'evil' or imperfection, for example.
And I agree, creation cannot be imperfect. In fact nothing is really imperfect as everything is part of the divine.

Seeing imperfection or evil in anything is part of the great illusion, Maya.

Many Indian Hindus are not well versed in their own scripture, just like most Christians don't seem to have read the Bible. Most people are born into a religion, have a vague idea about it and identify with it without having a meaningful understanding of that religion.

 

[sumaidi]

Hi Sumaidi.

There are Hindu texts that explain that sex outside of marriage is sinful. However there is not much difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex outside of marriage.

Hinduism isn't about rules. It is about principles and guidelines. The principle behind the idea that sex outside of marriage should be avoided is because of lust. Lust is said to be a gateway to hell.

So people who allow themselves to be controlled by lust and go have sex with anyone are ultimately leading themselves to a bad place. Lust is like a sickness.

Hinduism does not say much about homosexuality, except to acknowledge that it exists. Using the lust principle, one can determine that a homosexual who has sex with lots of different people freely is dooming himself. But I personally think that if a homosexual is allowed by society to marry or commits him/herself to one partner for life, this is not an engagement in lust anymore than a heterosexual couple.

Madhuri, imagine that if many men marry men (relationship of legal marriage). just like what happened in some west country that allowed marriage in heterosexual and homosexual. what world will become?
if Hinduism isn't about rules, It is about principles and guidelines ( as you said) don't you think that it have to control/avoid human kind from becoming destroying themself?

in islam its clear that homo sex and lesbian is sinfull. no marriage in both of them.

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri, imagine that if many men marry men (relationship of legal marriage). just like what happened in some west country that allowed marriage in heterosexual and homosexual. what world will become?

More peaceful I imagine. The traditional hatred and violence toward homosexuals is truly disturbing.

if Hinduism isn't about rules, It is about principles and guidelines ( as you said) don't you think that it have to control/avoid human kind from becoming destroying themself?

I think that the strict rules of some religions actually act to destroy itself. The reason principles are so great is that you can understand the reasons behind why we are taught something and apply it to a different time and place (context). Some rules in certain religions do not apply or work in the modern society, for example. But when you work on principles, you can't go wrong.

 

[sumaidi]

More peaceful I imagine. The traditional hatred and violence toward homosexuals is truly disturbing.

I think that the strict rules of some religions actually act to destroy itself. The reason principles are so great is that you can understand the reasons behind why we are taught something and apply it to a different time and place (context). Some rules in certain religions do not apply or work in the modern society, for example. But when you work on principles, you can't go wrong.

any explanation why you have thinking it more peaceful. for extreme, if all men marry men no baby will born. it means human will disappear from world.
show me the example that strict rules can destroy it self.

 

[Madhuri]

any explanation why you have thinking it more peaceful. for extreme, if all men marry men no baby will born. it means human will disappear from world.

All men? Who says that could ever happen? Homosexuality has always existed in every society but it is always a minority of people who are that way biologically inclined.

What makes society more peaceful is that we accept differences instead of encouraging violence. Humans like to destroy anything they don't like or understand. So much violence everywhere.

So yes, society would be more peaceful if people were not so hateful and violent against homosexuals.

show me the example that strict rules can destroy it self.

Strict rules are often made to apply to a specific situation. When time goes by and society changes, culture changes, technology changes etc. some rules don't make sense to follow anymore. My observation is that the insistence by some religious groups to continue following those strict rules when it is not sensible to do so is leading to higher rates of people being non-religious. I think there is a very high chance that religion will be less important to people in the future.

 

[LuisDantas]

show me the example that strict rules can destroy it self.

Madhuri gave a good answer, of course. But I ask you both permission to add that rules are basically never meant to be strict, because rules are unavoidably somewhat general and incapable of dealing with the finer distinctions and wider variety of situations in real life.

Human beings are capable of being in situations that challenge both the intention and the specified boundaries of even the most well-meaning laws and regulations. And very often, they are all the richer for that.

We should embrace and celebrate the many happy possibilities that such exceptions create instead of attempting to follow limitations that don't always have a good reason for existing. Often enough the letter of the law dictates something, yet it is apparent that common sense, compassion or love dictate otherwise. Following rules is all well and good, but even that is unproper under certain circunstances.

Sometimes it turns out that a first born is less deserving of an inheritance than his brother and even he realizes and accepts that. Or a husband is more inclined to cook or to take care of children than his wife, and it turns out that all people in the househould are in fact ok with that. Or some sorts of duties or expectations simply trouble specific people way too much for it to be reasonable to demand them. Rules, by necessity, have very limited wisdom, and human beings shouldn't be afraid to dare to be wiser than rules as long as they understand and accept that there are consequences and there is a joint responsibility. Taking responsibility is both a duty and a labor of love, when done correctly.