Can Hindus be atheist?

[SomeRandom]

Oh my dear brother Spirit, I have a reply with your name on it. But as I'm on my phone it will have to come later.
I will say this though, all the schools I listed were Astika, as in they accept the validity of the Vedas (which in classical thought is even more important than belief in God, which is why there's arguments for and against within them.) Unless they have changed their stance? I mean I don't know, last I checked they still accepted the Vedas.
Nastika is the negative in Sanskrit, it speaks of schools who reject the Vedas.
So no they don't necessarily believe in God,just accept the validity of the Vedas. Depending on how you define "God" they don't necessarily have to coincide. Whether or not you think that's inconsistent, I don't care. It is what it is.
Now granted my main language is English and even my Hindi is the Fijian variety. So I often get names and spellings wrong. That's not ignorance, it's just a result of getting the short end of the stick linguistically.
Though you are correct in that I mistakenly referred to Astika as shorthand for atheism. Apologies. Sanskrit is not really my language at all.
Also Chrome's autocorrect seems to think Nastika isn't a real word but Astika is. Weird.

 

[Vinayaka]

Read the debate. Study the debate. Maybe learn something. Maybe not.

 

[Chakra]

Read the debate. Study the debate. Maybe learn something. Maybe not.

That's been me for the last 2 months; concepts beyond my reach but yet so fascinating.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Of course its not nonsense. Since I know several Hindu Buddhists and Buddhist Hindu-s who simultaneously follow Buddha, attend Buddhist temples and meditation centers and also worship Hindu deities like Krishna and Durga. They do so and hence they are Buddhist Hindus. When will you understand that it is not incumbent on any Hindu or a Buddhist to take and believe each and every sloka or verse said in specific scriptures or accept each and every point of a certain Hindu/Buddhist/Jain school? Most Hindu-s do not this. Most Buddhists do not do this. If you do this, great. But that does not make you a more authentic Hindu or a Buddhist. And there has been Muslim Hindus, like Kabir, people who have worshiped both Rama and Allah as supreme God and who are considered masters. Bauls of Bengal are another example.

It is nonsense, if you follow my argument, that there is no such thing as a Hindu Buddhist religion or Hindu Atheist denomination of Hinduism. A "Hindu Buddhist" does not denote any known religion and hence it is nonsene. Non-sense. It makes somebody go "Urgh" because they cannot locate such a religion.

Your counter is, I am sorry to say a bad one. You say you know several people who identify as Hindu-Buddhist who attend Buddhist temples and also worship Krishna and Durga --- fine well I know Muslims who eat pork, I know of Christians who are adulterous, I know of Muslims who attend pagan ceremonies and invoke the mother goddess. Still, it is true to say that Islam teaches pork is haram and pagans are kafirs. We cannot determine the doctrines of a religion by the individuals who practice it, because that is subjective. Of course everybody is going to practice it differently. Of course there is going to be massive variance in how one understands it, interprets it and practices it. Of course there are going to be good Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus and bad Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus.

How we determine they are "good" or "bad" is by their conformity to what their religious scriptures teach, which shows us how it ought to be practised. We know a Jain is a bad Jain when we see them eating meat. We know they are not practising what their religion preaches. We know a Muslim is a bad muslim when they eat pork. How do we know? We know from their scriptures which define their beliefs and practices.

Hinduism is not a religion. Neither is Buddhism or Jainism. They are dharma.

They are officially recognised globally as religions. The irony is even on this forum.

Sure, I have heard all the arguments its a way of life, culture, a philosophy, a science blah blah. I have heard exactly the same from some Muslims, and Christians. However, we still recognise them officially as religions.
It is very obvious to somebody walking into a Hindu temple and seeing Hindus prostrating to thousands of deities with an officiating priest performing a ceremony pouring milk on the idol and chanting incantations that it is a religion.

Stop denying it is a religion, because it is not going to get you anywhere. It is not going to cause the owners of this web site to stop classifying it a religion, nor is it going to stop religious studies courses to stop teaching they are religions, nor is going to change the official census records of countries which look at religious demographics, and nor it going to change the views of people all over the world that it is a religion.

The more you deny, the more out of touch with the reality of it you are.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not speak for all individual Hindus. I speak for the religion as defined in the scriptures. I am looking at the scriptures in exactly the way it has been traditionally understood, sruti and smrti have to agree. I think this is fair, because that is also how we learn about other religions too, from their scriptures. This shows us how Hinduism ought to be followed.

Right there, I can only consider you misguided, then.

Not that your understanding of atheism is all that better. Quite on the contrary.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Supreme Court has as much authority in determining Hinduism as the sparrow outside my house. In legal contexts for the ease of matters of State such distinctions may need to be made, but not in any other respect.

I agree that the Supreme court of India has no religious authority in defining Hinduism. However, I was merely showing you when there is need to produce a definition, even the Supreme court was forced to accept Hinduism is the religion of the Vedas. The demarcation point between a Hindu and non-Hindu is their conformity to the Veda. Does this mean that Tantra is excluded? I will answer that next

And I can quote you many religious books saying that Carvaka, Ajjivika, Tantra etc. are non-Vedic heterodox traditions of Hinduism.

Carvaka and Ajivika are no doubt anti-Vedic nastka traditions, this is why theya re not considered Hindu. However, is Tantra a non-Vedic nastika tradition? It is not. I admit it very far from the orthodox Vedic tradition, but it still within the tradition, as much as Protestantism is within the tradition of Chrisrianity. Why is it still within the tradition? Here are the reasons

1) It still worships Vedic deities: Shiva, Devi, Vishnu, Krishna, Saraswati, Lakshmi etc
2) It still occurs within Vedic sects Vaishavism, Shaivism and Shaktism
3) It still refers to as its main scriptures Vedic scriptures e.g. Tantric Vaishnavism still refers to the Bhagvad Gita, the Vishnu Puranas and Suktas like Purusha Sukta in addition to the new Vaishnava Agamas; the Shaiva Tantras still refer to the Shaiva Upanishads, the Shaiva Puranas and Rudra Sukta of the Rig Veda. The Shakta tantra stiill refer to the Devi Mahatyma, the Puranas and and Suktas like the Devi Sukta,
4) It still accepts the 20 core universal beliefs I listed earlier
5) It still at large accepts the authority of the Veda
6) All of the Tantra concepts are traceable to the Vedic tradition e.g. Nadis which are articulated in greater detail in the Tantra texts such as Hatha Yoga is first mentioned in the Upanishads and Yoga Sutras. Same with asanas and pranayamas.​

Using the name of the same deity does not make it the same religion. Otherwise Judaism and Christianity and Islam would have been the same religion.

This would be true, if they did accept the same deities. However, we know they don't. The deity of the Jews is Yahwah. Of the Christians it is Jesus who is also Yawah(Jews reject that) and of the Muslims it is Allah(Jews and Christians reject that) Hence, we can demarcate them as separate religions. They themselves insist that they are not worshipping the same God.

In contrast, Shiva of the Veda is the Shiva of the Shaiva Tantriks too. They refer to the same mythology in the Mahabharata and Puranas. The same mantras are invoked as in the Rig Ved, such as the Rudra Suktam, which is still chanted by Shavites all over India today. The refer to the same Shaiva Upanishads and the same descriptions. Nor is Tantra a separate system of philosophy, it is based on an amalgamation of Samkhya, Vedanta, Yoga and Bhakti. See the list of tattvas in Shaiva: The 36 Tattvas and Their Significance

The first 25 are exactly the same tattvas of Samkhya. To it adds the 6th tattva from Yoga of Ishvara. To it adds the 'Maya' of Vedanta to to get 26. It then subdivides Ishvara tattva into 5 aspects: Shudda Vidya, Ishvara, Sadashiva, Siva and Shakti(further divided into five)

What is clear to scholars is that this is a later and continuous development of Hindu philosophical thought from its earliest proto-form in the Rig Veda, to its Upanishadic form, then its classical form and then its Puranic form. The final form is its Tantric form in the medieval ages. Hence, why we know it is exactly the same religion.

It is also officially recognised as a sect of Hinduism.

There is far far greater differences between the Agama religions and Vedic religions than between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If you just list the number of theological points differentiating the various agama and vedic religions and compare them to the differences in Judaism, Islam and Christianity...you will see this clear as day.

Show, don't tell.

Your argument that some of the Rig Vedic Goddesses changed their names and became the later Agamic deities is just apologetic gloss done by later commentators in order to bring autonomous sakti religious traditions into the fold.

This is not my argument, this is what the scholarship shows. The earliest proto-form of the Goddesss in the Vedic tradition is found in the Rig Veda. Where it describes Aditi as the mother of the Adityas Indra, Surya, Mitra, Varuna, Bhaga, Aryaman, Ansa, Vivasan/Martanda, the chief among them being Indra. Aditi is described as "deva-mata" mother of the gods, she is described as the Goddess of Earth and space and is described as mighty and powerful. Her name "Aditi" literally means boundless which is later associated with the notion of infinite. She is described 80 times in the Rig Veda. See: Aditi - Wikipedia

There is also a specific verse dedicated to Devi, entitled Devi Suktam:

I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship.
Thus gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in.
Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, – each man who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken.
They know it not, yet I reside in the essence of the Universe. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it.
I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that gods and men alike shall welcome.
I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him nourished, a sage, and one who knows Brahman.
I bend the bow for Rudra [Shiva], that his arrow may strike, and slay the hater of devotion.
I rouse and order battle for the people, I created Earth and Heaven and reside as their Inner Controller.
On the world's summit I bring forth sky the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean as Mother.
Thence I pervade all existing creatures, as their Inner Supreme Self, and manifest them with my body.
I created all worlds at my will, without any higher being, and permeate and dwell within them.
The eternal and infinite consciousness is I, it is my greatness dwelling in everything.

– Devi Sukta, Rigveda 10.125.3 – 10.125.8,[33][34][35]

Durga - Wikipedia​

The goddesses mentioned in the Rig Veda include Saraswati, Usha, Pritvhi, Vak, Ratri, Aranyani and in late Vedic texts Sri/Lakshmi. We still worship many of them today.

Later, in the Upanishads the goddesses are all merged into one primordial nature or mother become Maya, Shakti and Prakriti and is associated directly with Brahman as his energy:

10. Know then Prakriti (nature) is Mâyâ (art), and the great Lord the Mâyin (maker); the whole world is filled with what are his members.​

Svetashvatara Upanishad, Fourth Adhyaya​

In post-Vedic texts the first mentions of Durga are found in the Mahabharata and Ramayana, including the popular story of her slaying an Asura called Durg.

In the Puranas which is responsible for most of the pantheon of Hindu Gods and goddesses, the various forms of Devi appear Durga, Kali, Lakshmi (Saraswati is already an old Rig Vedic goddess) The first explicit mention of Durga is in the Devi Mahatmya, which is appended to the Matendra Purana, and it is the principal text of the Shaktas. It it from this we get the famous mythology of Durga as "Mahishasura maradini"

Devi Mahatmyam is also known as the Durgā Saptashatī (दुर्गासप्तशती) or Caṇḍī Pāṭha (चण्डीपाठः).[6] The text contains 700 verses arranged into 13 chapters.[7][6] Along with Devi-Bhagavata Purana and Shakta Upanishads such as the Devi Upanishad, it is one of the most important texts of Shaktism (goddess) tradition within Hinduism.[8]

The Devi Mahatmyam describes a storied battle between good and evil, where the Devi manifesting as goddess Durga leads the forces of good against the demon Mahishasura—the goddess is very angry and ruthless, and the forces of good win.[9][10][11] In peaceful prosperous times, states the text, the Devi manifests as Lakshmi, empowering wealth creation and happiness.[12] The verses of this story also outline a philosophical foundation wherein the ultimate reality (Brahman in Hinduism) is female.[13][14][15] The text is one of the earliest extant complete manuscripts from the Hindu traditions which describes reverence and worship of the feminine aspect of God.[5] The Devi Mahatmya is often ranked in some Hindu traditions to be as important as the Bhagavad Gita.[16]

Devi Mahatmya - Wikipedia
​

The other goddesses mentioned in the Puranas are Parvarti, Lakhsmi

Shankara himself when he sets up the Smarta traditions sets up Devi as one of the five forms of Brahman. He also writes one of the principal devotional texts of the Shaktas, Soundarya lahri. After him, the tradition of identifying Devi as the Supreme Brahman is in vogue.

And frankly that is exactly what is being done today by making Jesus come and die in Kashmir as a Hindu saint. Upanisadic Hinduism believes in one God in many manifestation. Thus it constructs a puranic narrative connecting a new god to an old god and hence expands the reach of Hinduism outwards.

So you come to these conclusions because you lack scholarship. You are a very educated scientist, but you are not educated about the history of Hinduism. Even Aupmanyav is making the same mistake by saying Shiva, Durga are not mentioned in the Rig Veda therefore they pre-IVC gods. Now, as I have shown you, we can trace the history of both Shaivism and Shaktism back to as early as the Rig Veda. We are tracking a history of some 5000-10,000 years and we can see the clear development in the ideas. How Rudra became Shiva; Dyas-Pitra, the Skyfather, becomes become Ekam Sat(ONE) by the end of the Rig Veda and then Brahman in the Brahmanas and Aranyakas; how Pritivhi or earth-goddess becomes Aditi and then becomes Devi by the end of the Rig Veda. Then Maya and then Prakriti in the Upanishads. We can see how the pantheon of Hinduism has also changed over time, how in early times Indra is the major God but Vishnu is a minor God, but by late Vedic age Vishnu and Shiva are supreme. We can see how how new words come into vogue, old ones fall out of use. We can see how new gods are added e.g. Krishna, Rama, Durga, Hanuman, Parvati.

This is to be expected with a religion like Hinduism which has a extremely long history.

Hence, Shaktism is not an autonomous non-Vedic tradition, because we can trace its development from its medieval Tantra stage right back to the early Vedic stage continuously by each preceding historical period.

I will repeat again it is because of your ignorance and lack of research that you spread these false ideas. You are doing a disservice to Hinduism. Would you like it if I spread wrong ideas bout the sciences you have Phds in based on my wrong understandings? Nope. Similarly, I do not appreciate how based on your half knowledge of Hinduism, you are spreading wrong ideas about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have yet to meet A Hindu atheist. As for our dear Aupmanyav, I consider him a theist, although he doesn't.

I like you a lot, Vinayaka, but this sure bugs me. How come you entitle yourself to know better than @Aupmanyav whether he is a believer or not?

 

[Vinayaka]

I like you a lot, Vinayaka, but this sure bugs me. How come you entitle yourself to know better than @Aupmanyav whether he is a believer or not?

It's mostly in jest and fun. Aup has my respect. It's gentle teasing with some truth to it.

You've never met anyone who claimed they were something, but actions or words were different? It's like the fellow who says, "I'm a vegetarian, but I do eat a little chicken on occasion."

How do you interpret "I talk with Shiva whenever I want to." theist or atheist?

 

[sayak83]

It is nonsense, if you follow my argument, that there is no such thing as a Hindu Buddhist religion or Hindu Atheist denomination of Hinduism. A "Hindu Buddhist" does not denote any known religion and hence it is nonsene. Non-sense. It makes somebody go "Urgh" because they cannot locate such a religion.

Your counter is, I am sorry to say a bad one. You say you know several people who identify as Hindu-Buddhist who attend Buddhist temples and also worship Krishna and Durga --- fine well I know Muslims who eat pork, I know of Christians who are adulterous, I know of Muslims who attend pagan ceremonies and invoke the mother goddess. Still, it is true to say that Islam teaches pork is haram and pagans are kafirs. We cannot determine the doctrines of a religion by the individuals who practice it, because that is subjective. Of course everybody is going to practice it differently. Of course there is going to be massive variance in how one understands it, interprets it and practices it. Of course there are going to be good Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus and bad Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Hindus.

How we determine they are "good" or "bad" is by their conformity to what their religious scriptures teach, which shows us how it ought to be practised. We know a Jain is a bad Jain when we see them eating meat. We know they are not practising what their religion preaches. We know a Muslim is a bad muslim when they eat pork. How do we know? We know from their scriptures which define their beliefs and practices.



They are officially recognised globally as religions. The irony is even on this forum.

Sure, I have heard all the arguments its a way of life, culture, a philosophy, a science blah blah. I have heard exactly the same from some Muslims, and Christians. However, we still recognise them officially as religions.
It is very obvious to somebody walking into a Hindu temple and seeing Hindus prostrating to thousands of deities with an officiating priest performing a ceremony pouring milk on the idol and chanting incantations that it is a religion.

Stop denying it is a religion, because it is not going to get you anywhere. It is not going to cause the owners of this web site to stop classifying it a religion, nor is it going to stop religious studies courses to stop teaching they are religions, nor is going to change the official census records of countries which look at religious demographics, and nor it going to change the views of people all over the world that it is a religion.

The more you deny, the more out of touch with the reality of it you are.

The nonsense and the delusions are entirely from your part. I am sorry to say that despite all your readings, you still understand very little of Hinduism or Buddhism. Get this in your head. Books and scriptures are not normative to Hinduism or Buddhism. We are not people of the book. They are guides and tools rather than commands and regulations. You have forgotten the living dharma for the books. You have come to believe that the grammar book is the language and are going around accusing the poets and novelists and song-writers for not following the rules in your grammar books.I am sorry to say that despite years of learning and knowledge, you have understood nothing of the faith. Knowledge without understanding is vain, fruitless. Notice how you are so desperately trying to fit the dharma-s in the paradigm of modern western conception of religion, and you bring the classification of the forum here as your justification! Who is trying to fit circle the square now? I hope you will eventually get it, in this life or the next. But meanwhile, do not try to tell us what Hinduism is or is not. The more you say these things, the more your complete clueless-ness about our faith is exposed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do you interpret "I talk with Shiva whenever I want to." theist or atheist?

Why just Shiva only. I can talk to any God or Goddess at any time of the day for any purpose or even for no purpose at all. I suppose somewhere I have already given my explanation. They are all my revered, elders, and friends. They are always with me. Only that, IMHO, I am developing emphysema. I need to take up walking in earnest. I would have liked to trek in low hills, be a wanderer for one or two months, but my wife would not allow it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why just Shiva only. I can talk to any God or Goddess at any time of the day for any purpose or even for no purpose at all. I suppose somewhere I have already given my explanation. They are all my revered, elders, and friends. They are always with me. Only that, IMHO, I am developing emphysema. I need to take up walking in earnest. I would have liked to trek in low hills, be a wanderer for one or two months, but my wife would not allow it.

Sorry to hear about the health, Aup. I'm sure the pollution levels in your city was another contributing factor. Take care.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's mostly in jest and fun. Aup has my respect. It's gentle teasing with some truth to it.

You've never met anyone who claimed they were something, but actions or words were different? It's like the fellow who says, "I'm a vegetarian, but I do eat a little chicken on occasion."

Fair enough, although I fear that lack of proper context may all too easily make those comments be misunderstood in forum posts.

Insistence on theism as some form of requisite for religious practice is very much a mistake, one that I would like to help dispell.

How do you interpret "I talk with Shiva whenever I want to." theist or atheist?

I guess I kind of assume that @Aupmanyav 's relationship towards Shiva is not entirely unlike mine own towards, say, Shakti and Isis.

There is a point to having those deity-concepts, learning from them, teaching them and meditating on the aspects of transcendence that they point towards. An often badly needed point.

But actually believing in their existence as autonomous entities? I am sorry if that disappoints you or anyone else, but it may well be that I am neurologically unable of choosing such a path. Nor of finding that to be a loss in any way.

It is fine to be a theist, but it is not to anyone's favor to fail to accept that not everyone is or should be one as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sorry to hear about the health, Aup. I'm sure the pollution levels in your city was another contributing factor. Take care.

Thanks, Vinayaka. I do need to work on it.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is fine to be a theist, but it is not to anyone's favor to fail to accept that not everyone is or should be one as well.

I concur. I hope I haven't lead you to believe I can't accept an atheist as a human brother, or worse, have hatred for atheism. I see it all as diversity within human belief.

 

[sayak83]

Carvaka and Ajivika are no doubt anti-Vedic nastka traditions, this is why theya re not considered Hindu. However, is Tantra a non-Vedic nastika tradition? It is not. I admit it very far from the orthodox Vedic tradition, but it still within the tradition, as much as Protestantism is within the tradition of Chrisrianity. Why is it still within the tradition? Here are the reasons

1) It still worships Vedic deities: Shiva, Devi, Vishnu, Krishna, Saraswati, Lakshmi etc
2) It still occurs within Vedic sects Vaishavism, Shaivism and Shaktism
3) It still refers to as its main scriptures Vedic scriptures e.g. Tantric Vaishnavism still refers to the Bhagvad Gita, the Vishnu Puranas and Suktas like Purusha Sukta in addition to the new Vaishnava Agamas; the Shaiva Tantras still refer to the Shaiva Upanishads, the Shaiva Puranas and Rudra Sukta of the Rig Veda. The Shakta tantra stiill refer to the Devi Mahatyma, the Puranas and and Suktas like the Devi Sukta,
4) It still accepts the 20 core universal beliefs I listed earlier
5) It still at large accepts the authority of the Veda
6) All of the Tantra concepts are traceable to the Vedic tradition e.g. Nadis which are articulated in greater detail in the Tantra texts such as Hatha Yoga is first mentioned in the Upanishads and Yoga Sutras. Same with asanas and pranayamas.​

This would be true, if they did accept the same deities. However, we know they don't. The deity of the Jews is Yahwah. Of the Christians it is Jesus who is also Yawah(Jews reject that) and of the Muslims it is Allah(Jews and Christians reject that) Hence, we can demarcate them as separate religions. They themselves insist that they are not worshipping the same God.

The first 25 are exactly the same tattvas of Samkhya. To it adds the 6th tattva from Yoga of Ishvara. To it adds the 'Maya' of Vedanta to to get 26. It then subdivides Ishvara tattva into 5 aspects: Shudda Vidya, Ishvara, Sadashiva, Siva and Shakti(further divided into five)

What is clear to scholars is that this is a later and continuous development of Hindu philosophical thought from its earliest proto-form in the Rig Veda, to its Upanishadic form, then its classical form and then its Puranic form. The final form is its Tantric form in the medieval ages. Hence, why we know it is exactly the same religion.

It is also officially recognised as a sect of Hinduism.

There is also a specific verse dedicated to Devi, entitled Devi Suktam:

I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship.
Thus gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in.
Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, – each man who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken.
They know it not, yet I reside in the essence of the Universe. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it.
I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that gods and men alike shall welcome.
I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him nourished, a sage, and one who knows Brahman.
I bend the bow for Rudra [Shiva], that his arrow may strike, and slay the hater of devotion.
I rouse and order battle for the people, I created Earth and Heaven and reside as their Inner Controller.
On the world's summit I bring forth sky the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean as Mother.
Thence I pervade all existing creatures, as their Inner Supreme Self, and manifest them with my body.
I created all worlds at my will, without any higher being, and permeate and dwell within them.
The eternal and infinite consciousness is I, it is my greatness dwelling in everything.

– Devi Sukta, Rigveda 10.125.3 – 10.125.8,[33][34][35]

Durga - Wikipedia​

​

I am cutting your quotes due to word limit problem.​

Quick points.
Obviously Muslims, Christians, Jews and Mormons worship the same God. YHWH, Jehovah and Allah are simply rendering of the same name in the related languages. They are all worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ismail, Jacob and Moses, and simply disagree on how much of the revelation is truly from this God . Christianity and Islam explicitly recognize that they are worshiping the God of the Jews. They obviously have the same myths and same legends and the same arc about the beginning and end of the world. They are so similar to each other that, in actuality, they can hardly be separated in truth. Its the fact that they are so identical is what makes them so hostile to each other. You do need two nearly identical microwaves in your kitchen, so the companies making nearly identical copies fight tooth and nail about which of them is superior.

The Rig Veda verse you mentioned is an ode to the Goddess of Speech (Vac), as explicitly mentioned in the Anukramani. Its later identification with Durga is a case of syncretism.

I have never said that Siva (or Rudra) is not mentioned in the Veda-s, but the concepts associated with Siva has changed a lot from early Vedic to Puranic to Tantric or agamic texts. So has Krishna obviously, from a younger brother of Indra to supreme God in Vaisnava tradition. In contrast YHWH has mostly remained YHWH. Here are the core beliefs that Islam-Christianity-Judaism share,
1) There is one and only one God called YHWH (Jehovah or Allah being variants in their respective tongue. A Jewish or Christian Arab will call God Allah).
2) He is utterly seperate from man, heaven, hell and the world and created them de-novo a finite time ago.
3) Man is a created being, like the angels seperate from God in essence (strict dualism) but has a soul (or breath) that is in the image of God.
4) Man, due to this inner soul, is seperate from the animal world and is the steward of the earth and was initially deathless like the rest of the created order.
5) Satan, a fallen angel, had tricked man in disobeying, bringing upon himself and the world the imperfections of sin and death, causing God to exile them from the Garden.
6) In the future God will create a new Creation where those men who are loyal to Him will be restored in their original perfection while the rest will suffer His wrath and torment for their transgression.
7) God has sent several prophets to his chosen people among men to guide them in His ways so that mankind has the opportunity to know God and be faithful to His will.
8) The key among them were Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isiah and many others. The key ancient action by which God definitely revealed Himself in history is through the deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt through Moses.
9) God gave holy laws to His people so that they may be righteous. He had also given them lands to settle in and become nations.
10) At the end times, unbelief in God would rise, Satan would come and rule over earth and the faithful will suffer greatly.
11) But those who persevere will get great rewards when finally God comes in wrath to overthrow Satan using his chosen messiah.
12) Then there will be a resurrection of the dead and judgement. Those who are judged to be transgressors will receive great torment, while the rest will pertake in the new perfected Creation and live in heavenly bliss for eternity.

Same God. They simply disagree which are the authentic revelations of this one and same God. Very little actual evolution has occured in the Abrahamic faiths since their inception in 800 BCE, in fact far less than Hinduism and Buddhism. There is more difference between Dvaita and Advaita strands of Saivism than between Christianity and Judaism (far less difference between Judaism and Islam). Just facts.
Your continued mistake in using Judeo-Christian-islamic standard for other faith traditions is noted. Hinduism and Buddhism is much more like ancient Hellenistic and Daoist traditions in Europe and China, lots of fluidity, diversity and intermingling with far less reliance on scriptures and far more reliance on the evolution of praxis among the people. What you lack is the ability to understand this basic fact.

 

[sayak83]

Seeing is one thing,
looking is another.
If both come together,
that is god.
If you look for an elephant,
he comes as an elephant.
If you look for a tree,
he’s a tree.
If you look for a mountain,
he’ll be a mountain.
God is what you have in your mind.
If you look for empty space,
he appears as space.
If you look for an ocean,
he’ll be an ocean.
If you look for a city,
he will come as a city.
God is what you have in your mind.
If you think of the God on the hill,
married to the Goddess,
that’s who you’ll see.
What you look for
is the God in you.
What you see
is the God out there.
God is what you have in your mind. - Annamacharya

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The nonsense and the delusions are entirely from your part.

Show it, or this statement is pointless. You need to back up every one of your points with reason. Show how what I have written is nonsense or delusion, don't just tell it.

I am sorry to say that despite all your readings, you still understand very little of Hinduism or Buddhism.

Who said I claimed to understand Buddhism? I do not have the same level of knowledge in Buddhism as I do of Hinduism. I have only studied Hinduism formally and read the scriptures of Hinduism, several dozens across all schools and traditions, so it only on Hinduism I claim to have better knowledge than the average lay person.(I am not even claiming to be a shastrri)

Your basic problem is this you can't tell the difference between Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka -- you just think it is all one thing "dharma" Yet, what happened recently when you made a plea to RF "Let's all be dharmic" why didn't it happen? It didn't happen because they are mutually opposing. It is the same reason why Muslims, Christian and Jews do not say "Lets all be Abrahamic" We have very different views on epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, soteriolog etcy. Yes, there are similarities, but there are fundamental doctrinal differences.

How can you not acknowledge that? Buddhists preach the doctrine of anatman. Hinduism preaches the doctrine of Atman. Buddhism in a fact a reaction against the Hindu doctrine of Atman, by rejecting it and also rejecting with it Brahman. Jainism preaches the doctrine of no Ishvara and no creator, Hinduism teaches the doctrine of Ishvara as Lord who created this universe using his power of Maya.

We are not going to get along if we were allowed to post in each others DIR forum .

Get this in your head. Books and scriptures are not normative to Hinduism or Buddhism. We are not people of the book. They are guides and tools rather than commands and regulations. You have forgotten the living dharma for the books. You have come to believe that the grammar book is the language and are going around accusing the poets and novelists and song-writers for not following the rules in your grammar books.

Tumhara pramana kya hai? Meaning what is your proof that scriptures are not normative in Hinduism(note Hinduism is what we are talking about here, not Buddhism) As a scientist you surprise me, isn't a scientist in the habit of giving evidence for every claim they make. Please show me where in Hindu scriptures or shastras it says scriptures are not an authority. Meanwhile, I will show you it is universally an authority:

Vedanta:

Brahman is realisable only through the scriptures.

Sastrayonitvat I.1.3 (3)

The scripture being the source of right knowledge.

Tattu Samanvayat I.1.4 (4)

But that (Brahman is to be known only from the Scriptures and not independently by any other means is established), because it is the main purpose (of all Vedantic texts).
Brahman (the intelligent principle) is the First Cause.

Ikshaternasabdam I.1.5 (5)

On account of seeing (i.e. thinking being attributed in the Upanishads to the First Cause, the Pradhana) is not (the first cause indicated by the Upanishads; for) it (Pradhana) is not based on the scriptures.

Section 1 – Brahma Sutras – Chapter 1: Samanvaya Adhyaya

Samkhya:

Samkhyakarika:

4. Perception, Inference and testimony of perfect beings(by these) all other means of right cognition too are established(as they are included the above three); proof is intended to be of three kinds. It is through the proofs that provables are established.
5. Perception is ascertainment of each respect object by the senses. Inference is declared to be of three kinds and it is preceded by knowledge of the middle term and major term. While testimony is the statement of a perfect trustworhy person and Veda
6. But the knowledge of supersensible thing is obtained through inference based on general observation; and knowledge of supersensible things not even established by that, is established through testimony and revelation.​

Samkhya Sutras

Aph. 77. And (the proposition that Nature is the cause of all is proved) from the text of Scripture, that the origin (of the world) is therefrom, (i.e., from Nature).

Aph. 83. There is Scripture for it, that he who has attained to discrimination, in regard to these (i.e. Nature and Soul), has no repetition of births.


Aph. 98. The declaration of the texts or sense (of the Veda, by Brahm, for example), since he knows the truth, (is authoritative)

Aph. 147. There is no denial (to be allowed) of what is established by Scripture; because the (supposed) evidence of intuition for this (i.e., for the existence or qualities in the Soul,) is confuted (by the Scriptural declaration of the contrary).tive evidence).​

Aph. 78. And he who, living, is liberated.

Aph. 79. It is proved by the fact of instructed and instructor.

Aph. 80. And there is Scripture.​

Vaiseshika

8. Therefore (the Soul is) proved by Revelation. 143.​

11. (The existence of a-sexual bodies is proved) also from
the Brahamana portion of the Veda. 180​

Nyaya

7. Word (verbal testimony) is the instructive assertion of a reliable person.
28. Our body is earthy because it possesses the special qualities of earth.
29. In virtue of the authority of scripture too*
130. The Veda is reliabIe like the spell and medical science, because of the reliability of their authors.
114. For that purpose there should be a purifying of our soul by abstinence from evil and observance of certain duties as well as by following the spiritual 'injunctions gleaned from the Yoga institute.-'​

Hence, you can see they all accept the authority of the Veda and use it to establish points.

So I have no idea where you are getting this idea from that scripture does not have authority in Hinduism. Of course it does. We accept all three major means of knowledge. This has already been explained to you elsewhere, scripture does not stand by itself, but it is supported by reason and evidence. Perception and testimony is used to establish the existence of all sensible things and supersensible things within the limits of reason. Scripture is used to establish the existence of things which neither perception and inference can ascertain.

I am sorry to say that despite years of learning and knowledge, you have understood nothing of the faith. Knowledge without understanding is vain, fruitless. Notice how you are so desperately trying to fit the dharma-s in the paradigm of modern western conception of religion, and you bring the classification of the forum here as your justification! Who is trying to fit circle the square now? I hope you will eventually get it, in this life or the next. But meanwhile, do not try to tell us what Hinduism is or is not. The more you say these things, the more your complete clueless-ness about our faith is exposed.

Here you go again, alleging that because something sounds Abrahamic, it must mean that we are trying to force Hinduism into an Abrahamic framework. You are just being silly to be honest. It is not just in Abrahamic religions that holy scriptures that define their beliefs, but nearly every religion, where you have a holy scripture or sacred text that its adherents derive their beliefs and practices from: Islam(Quran and Hadiths) Christianity(Bible) Judaism(Torah) Taoism(Tao de ching, Zhaungzi) Jainism(Jain Agamas, Tattvarth Sutra) Buddhism(Tripitaka, various Suttas, Dhamapada) Sikhism(Guru Granth Sahib, Dasagranth) Zoroastrianism(Zend Avesta) Shinto(Kojiki, Nohihon Shoki)

Now tell me are all these religions being forced into an Abrahamic category? No of course not, rather it is a common feature of a religion to have holy scriptures. Non literary Shamanic religions like Native American, African traditional, Pacific do not have written holy scriptures, but have oral traditions passed down through generations by Shaman priests.

Hence, like any other literary religion, Hinduism has its own scriptures and canons divided into categories(Sruti, the Samhita, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads; Itihas-Purana, containing the Mahabharata, Ramayana 18 major Puranas and 18 minor Puranas, considered to be the fifth veda. The Sutras, shastras, agamas and tantras. It is from them we derive our beliefs and practices.

You are refusing to see this, because you are refusing to see Hinduism as a religion, and as I've already established that is delusional. You may refuse to see it as a religion, but that does not mean the world is going to stop seeing it is a religion and certainly RF is not going to stop seeing it as a religion. You are free to live in your solipsistic world.

 

[sayak83]

@Spirit_Warrior

Selections from the Vedas can be used to support various propositions just as selections of Vedic sciptures can be used to direct worship. However that does not mean Veda-s (or scriptures) wield normative authority. The idea of normative authority is like the Constitution or the Quran that has to be accepted and followed in toto and nearly completely determine the beliefs and practices of the religion or the laws and rights in a nation. In Hinduism specifically (but also in Daoism and Buddhism), the scriptures do not have this role whatsoever. The Vedas are always used in a selective fashion, when they are used at all, in support of a belief, philosophy (darsana) or praxis and the rest are simply left out. If the Rig Veda wielded normative authority, we would be still be worshiping Indra, Agni and the other Vedic Gods using the Soma ritual and the government would be performing the Aswamedha sacrifice. If the early Upanisads wielded such normative authority, most Hindu-s would not be worshiping through bhakti in temples and murti-s. These texts, as well as lived experience and saints and seers of the present age, serve as sources from which to draw upon as one feels fit to do one's sadhana. I can show this to you by the harder (but more authentic) method of giving real life examples of how Hinduism is actually practiced by the people in various regions of India and in the diaspora, and how scripture play and important but still a relatively small role in the practice of the faith. But I do not have to, since the scriptures themselves say that they are not the normative authority.

Brahman has to be perceived by one's own mind and not through scripture or the senses:- (BHU 4.4.20)

18 The breathing behind breathing, the sight behind sight, the hearing behind hearing, the thinking behind thinking— Those who know this perceive brahman, the first, the ancient. 19 With the mind alone must one behold it— there is here nothing diverse at all! From death to death he goes, who sees here any kind of diversity. 20 As just singular must one behold it— immeasurable and immovable. The self is spotless and beyond space, unborn, immense, immovable. 21 By knowing that very one a wise Brahmin should obtain insight for himself. Let him not ponder over a lot of words; it just tires the voice


People without knowledge of the scripture can have knowledge of the Brahman surpassing the learned. (Chandayoga 4)

3 The other replied: "Come now! Given who he is, why do you speak of him as if he were Raikva, the gatherer?" "That man—how is he Raikva, the gatherer?" 4 "As the lower throws all go to the one who wins with the highest throw of the dice, so whatever good things people may do, all that goes to him. I say the same of anyone who knows what Raikva knows.

7 The steward searched for Raikva and returned, saying: "I didn't find him." Janasruti told him: "Look for him, my man, in a place where one would search for a non-Brahmin." 8 The steward respectfully approached a man under a cart scratching his sores and asked: "Sir, are you Raikva, the gatherer?" The man replied: "Yes, I am." The steward then returned, saying: "I did find him."

Knowledge of Brahman can be directly accessed without scripture (Chandayoga 4):-

Satyakam

Haridrumata then told him: "Who but a Brahmin could speak like that! Fetch some firewood, son. I will perform your initiation.. You have not strayed from the truth." So he initiated the boy and, picking out four hundred of the most skinny and feeble cows, told him: "Son, look after these." As he was driving them away, Satyakama answered back: "I will not return without a thousand!" He lived away for a number of years, and when the cows had increased to a thousand this is what happened. The bull called out to him: "Satyakama!" He responded: "Sir?" The bull said: "Son, we have reached a thousand. Take us back to the teacher's house, 2 and I will tell you one quarter of brahman." "Please tell me, sir."........ The bull continued: "The fire will tell you another quarter." The next morning Satyakama drove the cows on, and at the spot where they happened to be around sunset he built a fire, corralled the cows, fed the fire with wood, and sat down behind the fire facing the east. 2 The fire then called out to him: "Satyakama !" He responded: "Sir?" 3 "Son, I will tell you a quarter of brahman." "Please tell me, sir.".....The fire continued: "A wild goose will tell you another quarter." The next morning Satyakama drove the cows on, and at the spot where they happened to be around sunset he built a fire, corralled the cows, fed the fire with wood, and sat down behind the fire facing the east. 2A wild goose then flew down and called out to him: "Satyakama!" He responded: "Sir?" 3 "Son, I will tell you a quarter of brahman." "Please tell me, sir."......Finally he reached his teacher's house. The teacher called out to him: "Satyakama!" He responded: "Sir?" 2 "Son, you have the glow of a man who knows brahman! Tell me—who taught you?" "Other than human beings," he acknowledged. "But, if it pleases you, sir, you should teach it to me yourself, 3 for I have heard from people of your eminence that knowledge leads one most securely to the goal only when it is learnt from a teacher." So he explained it to him, and, indeed, he did so without leaving anything out.

Upakosala
Upakosala Kamalayana once lived as a vedic student under Satyakama Jabala and tended his fires for twelve years. Now, Satyakama, although he permitted other students of his to return home, did not permit Upakosala to do so. 2His wife then told him: "The student has performed his austerities and faithfully tended the fires. Teach him before the fires beat you to it." But Satyakama went on a journey without ever teaching him. 3Now, Upakosala became so afflicted that he stopped eating. His teacher's wife told him: "Come on, student, eat. Why have you stopped eating?" He told her: "The desires that lurk within this man are many and bring various dangers. I am overwhelmed by afflictions, and I will not eat." 4 The fires then said to each other: "The student has performed his austerities and faithfully tended us. So come, let us teach him." And they told him: "Brahman is breath. Brahman is joy (kd). Brahman is space (kha)."...

Vedas do not provide knowledge of Brahman: Svetaketu (Chandayoga 6)
There was one Svetaketu, the son of Aruni. One day his father told him: "Svetaketu, take up the celibate life of a student, for there is no one in our family, my son, who has not studied and is the kind of Brahmin who is so only because of birth." 2 So he went away to become a student at the age of twelve and, after learning all the Vedas, returned when he was twenty-four, swellheaded, thinking himself to be learned, and arrogant. 3His father then said to him: "Svetaketu, here you are, my son, swell-headed, thinking yourself to be learned, and arrogant; so you must have surely asked about that rule of substitution by which one hears what has not been heard of before, thinks of what has not been thought of before, and perceives what has not been perceived before?" "How indeed does that rule of substitution work, sir?".......................7 "Surely, those illustrious men did not know this, for had they known, how could they have not told it to me? So, why don't you, sir, tell me yourself?" "All right, son," he replied.


Now from the Gita. Vedas are not sufficient:-
Gita 2:42
The ignorant ones proclaim This flowery discourse, Arjuna, Delighting in the letter of the Veda And saying, "There is nothing else."
Full of desires, intent on heaven, They offer rebirth as the fruit of action, And are addicted to many specific rites Aimed at the goal of enjoyment and power.
To those (the ignorant ones) attached to enjoyment and power, Whose thought is stolen away by this kind of talk, Resolute insight In meditation is not granted.
The Vedas are such that their scope is confined to the three qualities;
Be free from those three qualities, Arjuna, Indifferent toward the pairs of opposites, eternally fixed in truth,
Free from thoughts of acquisition and comfort, and possessed of the Self.
As much value as there is in a well When water is flooding on every side, So much is the value in all the Vedas for a knowing brahman.

Gita: Marks of the wise are not knowledge of Vedas but character and attitude (2:54)
Arjuna spoke: How does one describe him who is of steady wisdom, Who is steadfast in deep meditation, Krishna?
How does he who is steady in wisdom speak? How does he sit? How does he move?
The Blessed Lord spoke: When he leaves behind all desires Emerging from the mind, Arjuna, And is contented in the Self by the Self, Then he is said to be one whose wisdom is steady.
He whose mind is not agitated in misfortune, Whose desire for pleasures has disappeared, Whose passion, fear, and anger have departed, And whose meditation is steady, is said to be a sage.
He who is without attachment on all sides, Encountering this or that, pleasant or unpleasant, Neither rejoicing nor disliking; His wisdom stands firm.
And when he withdraws completely The senses from the objects of the senses, As a tortoise withdraws its limbs into its shell, His wisdom stands firm.
Sense objects turn away from the abstinent man, But the taste for them remains; But the taste also turns away From him who has seen the Supreme.


The scriptures are indeed considered vital sources to use, but the living tradition of testimony of saints and seers of such wisdom through the past and into modernity as well as the sincere examples of millions and millions of sincere practicing Hindu-s is the primary guide to the dharma. Because the ever continuous upwelling of Brahman can be seen through them while the scripture contain only static snapshots of that in the past. People following a particular saint treat his words like scripture and this has gone on over the centuries and continues to happen. Thus new guides and scriptures continue to be created and continue to transform and revitalize the faith through space and time. Thus it is that we are not people of the book, but people of inspiration guided by tradition and learning.

 

[sayak83]

@Spirit_Warrior
Brahma-Sutra translation.
You quoted the first few verses of Brahma sutra as

Vedanta:

Brahman is realisable only through the scriptures.

Sastrayonitvat I.1.3 (3)

The scripture being the source of right knowledge.

Tattu Samanvayat I.1.4 (4)

But that (Brahman is to be known only from the Scriptures and not independently by any other means is established), because it is the main purpose (of all Vedantic texts).
Brahman (the intelligent principle) is the First Cause.

Ikshaternasabdam I.1.5 (5)

On account of seeing (i.e. thinking being attributed in the Upanishads to the First Cause, the Pradhana) is not (the first cause indicated by the Upanishads; for) it (Pradhana) is not based on the scriptures.

Section 1 – Brahma Sutras – Chapter 1: Samanvaya Adhyaya

As well, let's see what the text actually says:- (1.1.1- 1.1.5)


Atha-atah (Now) Brahma-Jignasa (Brahman-investigation) Janma-adi (born from/beginning with) asya (this) yatah (from whom) Shastra-Yoni-tat (shastra-origin-being) tat (such) tu (though) samanvayat (following upon/ a consequence of) iksateh (direct awareness)

Simplified
And now Brahman investigation; born from whom shastra originates as a consequence; by direct awareness.

I am not seeing what is being claimed in the translation. Where have I gone wrong?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Apologies for there being a large delay in addressing the rest of your point. I am trying to keep up, because you posting new replies as I am still busy composing a reply to the earlier points. So I will respond to your new posts after I have finished replying to the rest.

I just wanted to say are you an authority on Sanskrit, because I can see major problems in your attempts to translate, that is you are just literally translating word per word without any knowledge of sandhi and missing words. The translations I have cited are by people who are experts in Sanskrit and they are translations referenced by Hindu scholars. I think you might be overestimating your abilities again. Do you simply have problems with authority in general?