Brahmo Samaj?

[StarryNightshade]

In addition to having Hindu beliefs, I also attend a Unitarian Universalist church. I hold the belief that UU, while holding the label "religion", isn't really a religion in the strictest sense. It's more of a pluralistic community, where like minded individuals come to congregate; sharing the values of social justice, Humanism, and progressive theology.

I want to go to a seminary after I get my Bachelors in Psychology and become a Unitarian minister. I feel that combining my UU affiliation with my Hindu spirituality will allow me to strive for what I consider my values (the exploration of science within faith, social change, etc.). Since I'm a western born, non-Indian, I feel that this is the most viable path to combine my love for theology with the calling for a spiritually fulfilling career.

About a month ago, my minister, who knows that I practice Hinduism, sent me an article on a group called Brahmo Samaj. Sometimes colloquially known as "Hindu Unitarians".

Does anyone know about this group? I looked them up, and they seem like a stripped down form of Hinduism, mixed with Deism and western Monotheism. Being against "idol worship", avatars, Guru veneration, any scripture authority & infallibility, etc.

I also ask, because despite it's slightly antagonistic nature, I'm starting to think a Sampraday like this might be more fitting to me.

For starters, while I love the stories and mythologies within Hinduism, I don't believe any of them literally happened. I never believed any of the Avatars or Devas to be their own separate entities; only aspects of Brahman/representations of our inner divinity. While I find much great spiritual knowledge and wisdom from many scriptures (Hindu or otherwise), I don't hold any to be 100% infallible, authoritative, or supreme. I also see murthis and other practices as being very much spiritually and culturally important to Hinduism and India, but I have never performed puja, never was really inclined to Bhakti, and my altar is more of an important decoration rather than a mode of worship.

In conclusion:

1.) Does anyone have any knowledge of this Sampraday inside or outside of India?

2.) Are they as antagonistic as, say, Arya Samaj when it comes to more traditional forms of Hinduism?

3.) Would there be an issue with someone from Brahmo Samaj still going to a traditional temple or cultural center? If just to be a part of the greater Hindu community?

4.) How about having an altar of the Devas? If only as a means of cultural importance and inspiration, if not for worship?

5.) As far as anyone knows, is there anyway to syncrentize Brahmo Samaj with Advaita Vedanta?

 

[Sb1995]

I know Arya Samaj, my grandmas one.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

The Adi Dharma of Brahmo Samaj (the Original Dharma of the Order of the Supreme Brahman) is a wonderful, but now largely defunct, Bengali reform movement of Hinduism and is a casteless order.

Please revive it. Perhaps it is your calling. Learning to read and speak Bengali is a first step.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Poeticus]

Please revive it.

I would disapprove of this advice, though it is well intentioned and only meant to be comforting. The reason for me taking a stand against the Brahmo Samaj is because their viewpoints do more for segregating Hindus than they do for uniting them. The idea about mUrti-s being un-Vedic, and all Smritic texts being unqualified or unnecessary does a disservice. There are too many inconsistencies in both the Brahmo and Arya Samaj-s.

For example, folk Hinduism is most widely practiced in India - but the foundations of its varied forms are not in Shruti - and there is no need for their foundation to be in Shruti, since it is a socio-cultural matter. Both Samaj-s do not address this major facet of Hinduism. Secondly, their anti-muRti-s stance is not really inline with the Vedas, especially the Rg, wherein a mUrti of Lord Indra is clearly worshipped. In fact, Agni-worship is in and of itself indirectly "idol-worship"/mUrti-worship, since the fire represents the material and ethereal aspects of all that is under Rta. The two Samaj-s, IMHO, should be looked at in context of their creation and development. That context is Colonial India w/ vivid communal tensions. It is commendable that Arya Samajis, especially, are very open to conducting initiation rites, however.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

The idea about mUrti-s being un-Vedic, and all Smritic texts being unqualified or unnecessary does a disservice. There are too many inconsistencies in both the Brahmo and Arya Samaj-s.

For example, folk Hinduism is most widely practiced in India - but the foundations of its varied forms are not in Shruti - and there is no need for their foundation to be in Shruti, since it is a socio-cultural matter.

Same here. They are anti-Hindu. Brahmo Samaj did not succeed with Hindus the first time. It is not going to succeed anytime now. Practically defunct. Some Brahmo-Samajis became Christians - Keshub Chandra Sen.

 

[Vinayaka]

In addition to having Hindu beliefs, I also attend a Unitarian Universalist church. I hold the belief that UU, while holding the label "religion", isn't really a religion in the strictest sense. It's more of a pluralistic community, where like minded individuals come to congregate; sharing the values of social justice, Humanism, and progressive theology.

About a month ago, my minister, who knows that I practice Hinduism, sent me an article on a group called Brahmo Samaj. Sometimes colloquially known as "Hindu Unitarians".

1.) Does anyone have any knowledge of this Sampraday inside or outside of India?

2.) Are they as antagonistic as, say, Arya Samaj when it comes to more traditional forms of Hinduism?

3.) Would there be an issue with someone from Brahmo Samaj still going to a traditional temple or cultural center? If just to be a part of the greater Hindu community?

4.) How about having an altar of the Devas? If only as a means of cultural importance and inspiration, if not for worship?

5.) As far as anyone knows, is there anyway to syncrentize Brahmo Samaj with Advaita Vedanta?

Just some random thoughts, Starry,

My daughter attended a few UU meetings. She is a non-practicing Hindu, and thought it might be a nice place for her. But then when they had their big Thanksgiving dinner and she watched all the turkeys get eaten and had to defend vegetarianism, she decided to drop it. She felt they (at least that specific congregation) were a little too Christian for her.

1) There is a lot of info on-line if you search
2) I didn't realise Arya Samaj was antagonistic. Monks of my sampradaya have graciously hosted Arya Samaj monks, and I'm sure they all got along.
3) Generally at temples nobody knows the sectarian affiliation of anyone. We don't wear name-tags.
4) It wouldn't be a problem, although some like me would ponder why.
5) Anybody can attempt to integrate, synthesize anything they want to. I think you'd eventually find out on your own whether or not it worked.

 

[Maya3]

In addition to having Hindu beliefs, I also attend a Unitarian Universalist church. I hold the belief that UU, while holding the label "religion", isn't really a religion in the strictest sense. It's more of a pluralistic community, where like minded individuals come to congregate; sharing the values of social justice, Humanism, and progressive theology.

I want to go to a seminary after I get my Bachelors in Psychology and become a Unitarian minister. I feel that combining my UU affiliation with my Hindu spirituality will allow me to strive for what I consider my values (the exploration of science within faith, social change, etc.). Since I'm a western born, non-Indian, I feel that this is the most viable path to combine my love for theology with the calling for a spiritually fulfilling career.

About a month ago, my minister, who knows that I practice Hinduism, sent me an article on a group called Brahmo Samaj. Sometimes colloquially known as "Hindu Unitarians".

Does anyone know about this group? I looked them up, and they seem like a stripped down form of Hinduism, mixed with Deism and western Monotheism. Being against "idol worship", avatars, Guru veneration, any scripture authority & infallibility, etc.

I also ask, because despite it's slightly antagonistic nature, I'm starting to think a Sampraday like this might be more fitting to me.

For starters, while I love the stories and mythologies within Hinduism, I don't believe any of them literally happened. I never believed any of the Avatars or Devas to be their own separate entities; only aspects of Brahman/representations of our inner divinity. While I find much great spiritual knowledge and wisdom from many scriptures (Hindu or otherwise), I don't hold any to be 100% infallible, authoritative, or supreme. I also see murthis and other practices as being very much spiritually and culturally important to Hinduism and India, but I have never performed puja, never was really inclined to Bhakti, and my altar is more of an important decoration rather than a mode of worship.

I don´t know anything about them. But my spontaneous reaction to your question is to not label your Hindu path.
Don´t worry if you don´t believe in the Puranas or that the murtis are separate entities. As far as I know, a lot of Hindus don't. Me included
But I'm not sure if they are just culturally important in India anymore, Hinduism is growing in the West and it´s becoming a lot more common.

In conclusion:

1.) Does anyone have any knowledge of this Sampraday inside or outside of India?

2.) Are they as antagonistic as, say, Arya Samaj when it comes to more traditional forms of Hinduism?

I don't know anything about them.

3.) Would there be an issue with someone from Brahmo Samaj still going to a traditional temple or cultural center? If just to be a part of the greater Hindu community?

You mean from their perspective, or in general?

4.) How about having an altar of the Devas? If only as a means of cultural importance and inspiration, if not for worship?

I think that is up to each individual how they feel.

5.) As far as anyone knows, is there anyway to syncrentize Brahmo Samaj with Advaita Vedanta?

I am syncronizing Advaita with Smarta.

I get the feeling that your minister doesn't know much about Hinduism and is worried that it is polytheistic and feels uncomfortable with it.
She/He might be reaching to try to find a more "suitable" Hindu flavor for you.
I apologize if I misjudge her or him, please let me know if I'm wrong in this, and know that I don't mean any disrespect.

Hinduism has room for variation and differing beliefs, you don't have to label it.
I think it is more important to include the different and diverse beliefs within Hinduism than to find a path that has removed a lot of it.

I like the Unitarians, I think it would be great if you become a minister that is also a practicing Hindu. You would be able to show people how wonderful Hinduism is, and educate people about misconceptions about it.

Maya

 

[Aupmanyav]

The idea about mUrti-s being un-Vedic, and all Smritic texts being unqualified or unnecessary does a disservice.

We know what we stand for. We have no need for the smart chaps to tell us what is right and what is wrong. And Hindus treasure their freedom of personal belief or unbelief. If we like idol worship then we will do it. HINDUISM IS NOT JUST VEDIC RELIGION, though Vedic religion is a part of Hinduism. That way they deny the indigenous (pre-Aryan) belief. All, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga; gone. They are not in the Vedas.

 

[Poeticus]

We know what we stand for. We have no need for the smart chaps to tell us what is right and what is wrong. And Hindus treasure their freedom of personal belief or unbelief. If we like idol worship then we will do it. HINDUISM IS NOT JUST VEDIC RELIGION, though Vedic religion is a part of Hinduism. That way they deny the indigenous (pre-Aryan) belief. All, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga; gone. They are not in the Vedas.

Many forget or are utterly ignorant in all good means of what the Chatur-Veda-s represent. They represent karma-kanda. This deals with the yajna. And many are under the same boat when it comes to jnana-kanda and the Mukhya Upanishads, which deal with metaphysical speculations. They are Shruti, yes. But there doesn't exist a pramANa that states that everything exists and is solidified in them. Only the Mimamsaka-s undertook that path of thought, but with major room for skepticism. It's funnier when I notice many instances around the world that extol "Vedicism", but rarely ever mention the term, "Hindu". It's absolutely and utterly funny because the "Vedicism" they seem to be so fond of is very much "Hindu", but rarely "Vedic", since it never deals with Shruti nor yajna-centric theology. There is so much beauty, solidarity, foundation, history, theology, diverseness, and sublimity in folk Hinduism that it would be preposterous to put it all aside or neglect it as if it is irrelevant.​

 

[Poeticus]

Same here. They are anti-Hindu. Brahmo Samaj did not succeed with Hindus the first time. It is not going to succeed anytime now. Practically defunct. Some Brahmo-Samajis became Christians - Keshub Chandra Sen.

The translations of the Veda-s conducted under the Samajis are what really concerned me (along with the other concerns mentioned in posts above, understandably). At least Griffith and Wilson (and even Muller) tried to abide by Sayanacharya (who, himself, attempted a translation of various Shrauta-texts through aitihasika-related approaches). But the Samajis do not even follow the three approaches: adhiyajna, adhyatmika, and aitihasika. It is arguable, however, that they undertook a certain version of adhyatmika, but it's tangibly questionable because nirukta can only make so much room - from where even metaphorical translations would have a boundary on how far the meaning of a verse can be altered and still abide by the chanda, devata-content, and incantation. In hindsight, it would be more important to look at the Samajis in the context of their creation and development: Colonial India & communal tensions in the Subcontinent.​

 

[StarryNightshade]

My daughter attended a few UU meetings. She is a non-practicing Hindu, and thought it might be a nice place for her. But then when they had their big Thanksgiving dinner and she watched all the turkeys get eaten and had to defend vegetarianism, she decided to drop it. She felt they (at least that specific congregation) were a little too Christian for her.

That's actually rather shocking to me.

At least at my congregation, whenever there is a dinner or potluck, in addition to meat dishes, we always try to accommodate people who are non-meat eaters, as well as those with allergies. Anything from Vegetarian, to Vegan, to Gluten-free.

As for that congregation being too Christian, I notice fairly significant congregational differences by region; at least here in the United States. The south (where I live) tends to be more Humanist, the west coast tends to have more Dharmic and Pagan influence, and the northeast (where the Unitarian church really took off in the US) keeps more to it's Judeo-Christian roots.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I get the feeling that your minister doesn't know much about Hinduism and is worried that it is polytheistic and feels uncomfortable with it.
She/He might be reaching to try to find a more "suitable" Hindu flavor for you.
I apologize if I misjudge her or him, please let me know if I'm wrong in this, and know that I don't mean any disrespect.

No, I think you nailed it right on the head. I love the UU church, but there seem to be many who are turned off by the notion of "living tradition" forms of spirituality.This includes Hinduism, some Pagan paths, some Native Americans paths, and African tribal spirituality. Because UU puts so much emphasis on scientific inquiry and rational thought, some members think that practicing any of the aforementioned equates to being superstitious.

 

[Vinayaka]

As for that congregation being too Christian, I notice fairly significant congregational differences by region; at least here in the United States.

Yes, that's what I've heard too. I wasn't trying to put a damper on your wishes, just expressing the very little I do know. That sure isn't much.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Yes, that's what I've heard too. I wasn't trying to put a damper on your wishes, just expressing the very little I do know. That sure isn't much.

Oh no, it's perfectly fine. I didn't get the feeling that you were trying to damper anything.

 

[Maya3]

No, I think you nailed it right on the head. I love the UU church, but there seem to be many who are turned off by the notion of "living tradition" forms of spirituality.This includes Hinduism, some Pagan paths, some Native Americans paths, and African tribal spirituality. Because UU puts so much emphasis on scientific inquiry and rational thought, some members think that practicing any of the aforementioned equates to being superstitious.

Glad that you understood what I meant.

I really like that they emphasize scientific thought and rational thought, that´s good.

Maya

 

[Aupmanyav]

The translations of the Veda-s conducted under the Samajis are what really concerned me (along with the other concerns mentioned in posts above, understandably). At least Griffith and Wilson (and even Muller) tried to abide by Sayanacharya (who, himself, attempted a translation of various Shrauta-texts through aitihasika-related approaches). .. it would be more important to look at the Samajis in the context of their creation and development: Colonial India & communal tensions in the Subcontinent.

Can't gove you a fruball so soon. Dayananda murdered the Vedas. Of course, I understand where he was coming from. IMHO, Arya Samaj was a reaction to Christian proselytization.

 

[Poeticus]

Can't gove you a fruball so soon. Dayananda murdered the Vedas. Of course, I understand where he was coming from. IMHO, Arya Samaj was a reaction to Christian proselytization.

Apart from his "translationary" mishaps, Dayananda was quite the ardent and skilled analytical debater. Plus, around his time, it was rare for Hindus to be proud of being Hindus. Dayananda switched it around, using the pro-Western socio-cultural political landscape prevalent in Colonial India, and invigorated Hindus to self-analyze and be proud of their religious identity, by engaging in polemical comparisons of various religions. This was revolutionary, because religious imperialism in terms of debate is a non-Dharmic paradigm, but since the Dharmic religions, especially Hinduism, had been subjected to religious imperialism in polemical debates by non-Dharmic religious figures, Dayananda turned the radical missionary approaches on their heads to offer anti-proselytization resistance. Lastly, he instituted the socio-cultural doctrine of conversion-to-Hinduism, a feature unheard of in the Subcontinent, and rarely ever practiced in such formality.

Plus, the man was a Gujarati. ​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, he was a Gujju.

 

[Poeticus]

Yes, he was a Gujju.

Gujarati*

Gujju, Punju, Bong, Lungi, and other terms for various Indic ethno-linguistic groups, are derogatory identifications.

... Personally, I prefer Gurjara. ​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Gujju is fun, lovingly, and is not derogatory here. My brother's brother-in-law is married to a Gujarati lady. They are in Amdabad. Who does not love Narendrabhai these days (except, of course, the mother and the son).