Hinduism: Ask your Questions

[Dan4reason]

I am surprised at the enormous amount of disinterest in this religion with the non-Indian members(Even in the Hinduism forum the majority of posters are of Indian origin) and yet it's the third largest religion in the world and one of the oldest, if not the oldest religion in the world.

I am sure there must be some questions about Hinduism that people may want to ask. I invite people of all religions, especially Christians and Muslims to ask me questions on Hinduism. Anything you want to know.

It benefits us both. You get to learn about Hinduism and I get to sharpen my answering skills

I have some questions. What are the beliefs of Hinduism what evidence is there to support them?

 

[Riverwolf]

I have some questions. What are the beliefs of Hinduism what evidence is there to support them?

That evidence isn't necessary, because whether or not supernatural beliefs are literally true isn't important.

The real unifying belief between the various Hindu religions is that the Vedas are the highest spiritual authority. Since this is a subjective statement, it can't have any evidence for it. Many people would probably not find anything of use for their lives in the Vedas. Even when regarding what it means to be the highest spiritual authority, you'll find differing opinions between the various sects.

 

[Dan4reason]

That evidence isn't necessary, because whether or not supernatural beliefs are literally true isn't important.

The real unifying belief between the various Hindu religions is that the Vedas are the highest spiritual authority. Since this is a subjective statement, it can't have any evidence for it. Many people would probably not find anything of use for their lives in the Vedas. Even when regarding what it means to be the highest spiritual authority, you'll find differing opinions between the various sects.

Every claim about the supernatural and how people should live their lives need evidence of some kind. All I am looking for is data that shows that your beliefs are the truth. I hear that the Vedas are old religious writings. Who wrote them? Are they perfect? What claims do they make? According to your form of Hinduism, how authoritative are they?

You mention a "spirit." How do you know this non-physical entity exists?

 

[Riverwolf]

Every claim about the supernatural and how people should live their lives need evidence of some kind.

Only if the supernatural is put forth as literal truth, which may not be the case. Logic states that the supernatural cannot exist; whatever exists, in any form, is natural. I.E., if God exists, He is natural. If ghosts exist, they're natural. If the soul exists, it's natural.

As for "how we should live our lives," personal experimentation is really the best way to determine that. For example, I cannot live the orthodox, traditional Hindu way of life, because of my upbringing as a Westerner. I can try, but from what I've read about it, I would not be happy with that life. However, I can attempt to adapt certain aspects of that life (such as morning and evening rituals, which I still am not doing to well at keeping regularly) without compromising my own dispositions.

All I am looking for is data that shows that your beliefs are the truth.

You won't find any, because we don't believe that.

I hear that the Vedas are old religious writings. Who wrote them?

Poets.

Are they perfect?

Depends on the type of perfection you are looking for. Are they perfect in terms of continuity? No. The words contradict each other all the time. However, the words aren't important; the essence is.

What claims do they make?

I honestly can't answer that myself because I've never actually read the Vedas. I only know of their wisdom through later texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and the Bhagavatam.

According to your form of Hinduism, how authoritative are they?

In terms of the essential message, which is mirrored beautifully in subsequent texts, very authoritative.

You mention a "spirit." How do you know this non-physical entity exists?

I don't. If you mean "highest spiritual authority," I don't mean with regards to the non-physical. I'm referring to the other definition of spirit: that of inward meaning and attitude rather than dealing with non-physical matters.

Besides, whether or not the non-physical exists isn't important to me. If it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Krishna never existed, I'd still treat the Bhagavad-Gita and the Bhagavatam with authority.

Literalism isn't important.

You might be interested to hear that I've heard of a mandala in the Rig Veda that questions the existence of the devas that are glorified so highly in the same text.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Every claim about the supernatural and how people should live their lives need evidence of some kind. All I am looking for is data that shows that your beliefs are the truth. I hear that the Vedas are old religious writings. Who wrote them? Are they perfect? What claims do they make? According to your form of Hinduism, how authoritative are they?

You mention a "spirit." How do you know this non-physical entity exists?

The Ideal in the Dharma religions is to find the truth for your self through spiritual practice. We do not believe that some human being a long time ago saw God wrote about it. Now we must have faith in the text of this prophet or that prophet. I see scriptures as a map to the truth not truth itself. By organizing my mind through spiritual practice I like my teachers before me can find the nature of reality (God).

The cause of Human suffering (according to Advaita Vedanta) is the belief that all of us are separate individuals. Through our spiritual practice it is our goal to realize our unity with the whole of the cosmos. By doing so we become one with God (ground of all being) and transcend all suffering.

 

[Onkara]

I see scriptures as a map to the truth not truth itself. By organizing my mind through spiritual practice I like my teachers before me can find the nature of reality (God).

Hi
This is a good point, for people new to Sanatana Dharma from an Abrahmic background. For me, the Vedas, (or specifically the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras) are NOT a set of do's and don't, but as Wannabe says, truth or guidance to something much greater. It is through studying them that I my mind has come to rest rather than a need for faith, in other words, reading them helps reduce the need in faith or need of punishment or heavenly rewards to keep me in line.

 

[Madhuri]

I have some questions. What are the beliefs of Hinduism what evidence is there to support them?

This is not easy to answer because 'beliefs of Hinduism' are not so simple or specific as the Abrahamic religions. It's hard to know where to start with this question. Especially because what one Hindu might believe could be the complete opposite of what another Hindu believes.

But to be very general, I will say that 'evidence' in the spiritual context is often very personal and highly subjective. What is wonderful about Hinduism is that it provides a Yogic practice/procedures that help one to realise it's truth. This is often called the 'Science of Yoga' because one can follow methods and make conclusions based upon them. So a person does not have to have firm faith in order to practice Yoga but often the experiences that occur or result from Yogic practice will establish firm faith.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

So, I think I understand the concept of God that Hinduism presents, yet I am still unsure. I know it is a contradiction to understand not understand, but oh well. Is God, or the many incarnations of God, viewed as beings that are capable of benevolent and malevolent acts, or is God simply a way of representing the oneness and the ultimate reality?

 

[K.Venugopal]

Why is Orange a special colour, for clothes for example? Should we wear Orange?

In the orange colour cloths worn by sanyasis, the colour represents the colour of fire, which symbolizes the sense of sacrifice. Sacrifice is not merely giving up something, but in the sanyasis case it is the transcending to a higher stage so that the desires/wants of the lower stage drop off. In India the orange/saffron/ochre robes are almost exclusively worn by sanyasis and monks and the public at large reserve it for them.

 

[Onkara]

So, I think I understand the concept of God that Hinduism presents, yet I am still unsure. I know it is a contradiction to understand not understand, but oh well. Is God, or the many incarnations of God, viewed as beings that are capable of benevolent and malevolent acts, or is God simply a way of representing the oneness and the ultimate reality?

HI PivotalSyntax
From my perspective of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) there is only One God: Brahman, the source of all. Brahman created matter and with matter came names and form. So for example, Brahman created man, gods, trees etc. Because man was created by Brahman man gave name and form e.g. called the form of tree a tree (name) and made the form a chair from wood, calling the form a chair (sorry this sounds so simple, but it helps to answer). But because Brahman created forms, he also created all the Gods, they represent Brahman in action, through name and form, so humans can perceive them and the world of form can be created, sustained and destroyed as the One God wills.

The point from knowing this is that on realising that all is Brahman, that all is still Brahman and will always be Brahman then the ultimate reality is known. But to know this beyond words in a forum, one is encouraged to study the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita etc, as through the path of yoga one comes to know this truth intuitively, without doubt and is liberated.

Some will describe this as the Advaita Vedanta perspective of Sanatana Dharma, however we can go into other perspectives with equal enthusiasm.

 

[Onkara]

In the orange colour cloths worn by sanyasis, the colour represents the colour of fire, which symbolizes the sense of sacrifice. Sacrifice is not merely giving up something, but in the sanyasis case it is the transcending to a higher stage so that the desires/wants of the lower stage drop off. In India the orange/saffron/ochre robes are almost exclusively worn by sanyasis and monks and the public at large reserve it for them.

Thank you for explaining, I had no idea. It makes a lot of sense that it is associated with sacrifice. Sacrifice (or giving) plays a large role in Hindu thought, does it not.

 

[Madhuri]

So, I think I understand the concept of God that Hinduism presents, yet I am still unsure. I know it is a contradiction to understand not understand, but oh well. Is God, or the many incarnations of God, viewed as beings that are capable of benevolent and malevolent acts, or is God simply a way of representing the oneness and the ultimate reality?

It depends on the branch of Hinduism, really. I think the most general and common understanding is that 'God' is everything or that everything is part of God/God's energy. Some see God as impersonal and others see God as person (and some as both). As for benevolent or malevolent acts, it absolutely depends on how you choose to percieve it. If we are all part of God, and we are capable of such acts, then arguably one oculd say that God is capable of both. For those who believe in the incarnations of God it is also arguable. Particularly because 'good' and 'bad' are subjective. If God kills a man, is it bad? Is he doing it for some reason that makes it good? In that state of ultimate reality that you mentioned, I do not see any such thing as good or bad action. There is only action that is then percieved subjectively as good or bad or neither or both.

But if you mean 'is God capable of evil intent?' then I do not think so. This is because there is no such thing as 'evil', only ignorance, and though ignorance or illusion represents one tiny facet of God's energy, God Himself is known as Eternity, Knowledge and Bliss (Love).

 

[PivotalSyntax]

HI PivotalSyntax
From my perspective of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) there is only One God: Brahman, the source of all. Brahman created matter and with matter came names and form. So for example, Brahman created man, gods, trees etc. Because man was created by Brahman man gave name and form e.g. called the form of tree a tree (name) and made the form a chair from wood, calling the form a chair (sorry this sounds so simple, but it helps to answer). But because Brahman created forms, he also created all the Gods, they represent Brahman in action, through name and form, so humans can perceive them and the world of form can be created, sustained and destroyed as the One God wills.

The point from knowing this is that on realising that all is Brahman, that all is still Brahman and will always be Brahman then the ultimate reality is known. But to know this beyond words in a forum, one is encouraged to study the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita etc, as through the path of yoga one comes to know this truth intuitively, without doubt and is liberated.

Okay. Do they literally believe that Brahman created all of this, or is it simply a way of allegorically describing it? What I'm trying to come to an understanding about is whether Brahman is seen as a literal personal God capable of actions, or whether it's an impersonal God that is used as a way to describe reality.

 

[K.Venugopal]

HI PivotalSyntax
From my perspective of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) there is only One God: Brahman, the source of all. Brahman created matter and with matter came names and form. So for example, Brahman created man, gods, trees etc. Because man was created by Brahman man gave name and form e.g. called the form of tree a tree (name) and made the form a chair from wood, calling the form a chair (sorry this sounds so simple, but it helps to answer). But because Brahman created forms, he also created all the Gods, they represent Brahman in action, through name and form, so humans can perceive them and the world of form can be created, sustained and destroyed as the One God wills.

You are right that Brahman is the source of everything but to associate a creation with Brahman might be misleading because the word creation, being so widely used by Abrahamic religions, has come to mean the bringing forth of something that did not exist before. It would be truer to say manifestation because everything is the manifestation of the source that is Brahman. In manifestation nothing new comes forth and therefore a creator-creation separation never occurs. Human experience of such a separation is said to be "maya" or illusion and is the cause of man's biggest problem - his sense of lack.

 

[Onkara]

Okay. Do they literally believe that Brahman created all of this, or is it simply a way of allegorically describing it? What I'm trying to come to an understanding about is whether Brahman is seen as a literal personal God capable of actions, or whether it's an impersonal God that is used as a way to describe reality.

Hi PivotalSyntax
It is literal, in that the the Upanishad scriptures describe it. Brahman not only created it but IS IT. Creation is Brahman.

However Brahman is not described in such a personal sense as you may be familiar with from Genesis or Biblical descriptions. Brahman is generally taken to be impersonal, however as Madhuri says, "Some see God as impersonal and others see God as person (and some as both).". In Sanatana Dharma there is that flexibility because ultimately the scriptures describe Brahman as being almost unfathomable by the human mind. Vedanta philosophy, which has influenced Sanatna Dharma since abour 700AD, confirms that Brahman can be known through three core qualities, Sat Chit Ananda - which Madhuri summarises as "God Himself is known as Eternity, Knowledge and Bliss (Love)."

The Tantric schools of Sanatana Dharma see Brahman consisting of two united parts: the Male - Shiva and the female Shakta. This is out of my scope and I suggest wikipedia to begin with, but could be something WannabeYogi can assist us with.

To answer your question from my understanding. Personality exists IN Brahman, so personality (or a Personal God) is quite acceptable.

 

[kaisersose]

What do u worship and what are the basis of the Hinduism ??

Hinduism is unlike Semitic religions which have a single God and a single book. This can be hard to grasp for many.

Hinduism is an umbrella label for a large set of religious beliefs in the Indian sub-continent. As these beliefs originated in the same region & have existed for a long time, they have a lot in common, but there are differences too, which cannot and should not be ignored. For this reason, it is usually inaccurate to try and pass off a common basis for all of Hindus.

Some common elements (with exceptions of course) are polytheism, idol worship, ancestor worship, religious festivals, belief in reincarnation & Karma. There is also the concept of Mukti or Liberation, but that is not of interest to the lay person, who is more concerned with benefits available when he is alive.

 

[kaisersose]

Okay. Do they literally believe that Brahman created all of this, or is it simply a way of allegorically describing it? What I'm trying to come to an understanding about is whether Brahman is seen as a literal personal God capable of actions, or whether it's an impersonal God that is used as a way to describe reality.

Depends on who you ask.

Brahman is not a critical part of present day Hinduism. The majority of Hindus are happy worshipping Ganesha or Rama or Shiva, without the need for finding a common "Brahman" behind these Gods. Most religious Hindus I know would not be able to define Brahman and over 50% of them, have never heard of the name before (and I mean people living in India). A creator God named Brahma, who is seen by some as part of a trinity (Vishnu/Shivu/Brahma) is a lot more famous than the Vedic Brahman and it is possible that some people will confound the two.

Brahman is more relevant to people who are interested in Liberation, etc., and explore Hinduism through Vivekananda's writings or other writers who wrote about Vedanta (Upanishads, etc). But like I said earlier, the lay religious person has no interest in this subject and 999/1000 are lay people. This does not make them any lesser, they are just not interested and hence, the insignificance of Brahman in Hinduism.

About the true nature of Brahman - which is a topic of discussion in Vedanta traditions - the answer depends on who you are asking. Vaishnava traditions hold that Brahman is none other than Vishnu with a real & eternal form. Advaita says Brahman is without attributes and thus formless. The choice is yours!

I have argued with Vaishnavas on this, in the past. Why would Vishnu have eyes, ears and a nose? We have them, because we need them. Vishnu does not need sense organs and hence, is unlikely to have any. Makes more sense that we attributed our own forms and behaviors to our Gods.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Personal understanding is that *BRAHMAN* is not a *GOD* it is simply *BRAHMAN* like *TAO*. Creation came out of that energy labelled BRAHMAN and first in line were the GODS of creation/preservation/destruction.
Kindly correct if the understanding is incorrect.

Love & rgds

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Some common elements (with exceptions of course) are polytheism, idol worship, ancestor worship, religious festivals, belief in reincarnation & Karma. There is also the concept of Mukti or Liberation, but that is not of interest to the lay person, who is more concerned with benefits available when he is alive.

You are correct. Some common people on the street have the ideas you talk about. I have yet to meet any Hindu (who studies and practice his faith) of any sect that is polytheistic (except for tribal folks).

I would not take a poll of the average catholics on the street to find the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. I would read the bible, church Councils, and people like Augustine if I wanted to understand the real Catholicism.

I would not go out to the shopping mall and ask people randomly the history of Islam. I would get a better understanding if I took a college course on the subject. The beliefs of the average person comes more under the subject of anthropology or sociology but it does in some way give knowledge of how the belief system is practiced.

I have also talked to poor village people who had a very good knowledge base of Hinduism and they can not afford to buy a book on it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Friends,

Personal understanding is that *BRAHMAN* is not a *GOD* it is simply *BRAHMAN* like *TAO*. Creation came out of that energy labelled BRAHMAN and first in line were the GODS of creation/preservation/destruction.
Kindly correct if the understanding is incorrect.

Love & rgds

The problem is that English is not as descriptive of philosophic ideas as sanskrit.
The European philosopher Spinoza defined God much like Brahman.