Hinduism is the most generous religion

[Moses the God Archetype*]

Is this New Age hinduism?

m: Hahahahahaha....(ecstatic laughter) No no beloved there is nothing new under the sun this is not new age at all, for the bhakti movement is very old within hinduism.:flower2:

 

[lilithu]

Is this New Age hinduism?

Is what "New Age Hinduism"?

It's always a danger to generalize but "generally" speaking there are three (or four depending on who you talk to/read) paths to moksha in Hinduism:
jnana marga = the path of wisdom
bhakti marga = the path of love
karma marga = the path of action

Sometimes, instead of marga (which means path) you'll see yoga (which means union), because ultimately what one seeks is union with the Divine.

Moses' dharma is the path of love. I was saying that I am more inclined to the path of wisdom (as much as I admire love/compassion and try to cultivate it, my nature is more comfortable with reason, experience, gnosis). But as he pointed out, the end is the same. I agree. The thing I love the most about Hinduism is the recognition that people are different. We are born with different proclivities. It makes no sense to force us all to worship in the same way. And it makes no sense to fight about which way is "right" or "best."

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

Is what "New Age Hinduism"?

It's always a danger to generalize but "generally" speaking there are three (or four depending on who you talk to/read) paths to moksha in Hinduism:
jnana marga = the path of wisdom
bhakti marga = the path of love
karma marga = the path of action

Sometimes, instead of marga (which means path) you'll see yoga (which means union), because ultimately what one seeks is union with the Divine.

Moses' dharma is the path of love. I was saying that I am more inclined to the path of wisdom (as much as I admire love/compassion and try to cultivate it, my nature is more comfortable with reason, experience, gnosis). But as he pointed out, the end is the same. I agree. The thing I love the most about Hinduism is the recognition that people are different. We are born with different proclivities. It makes no sense to force us all to worship in the same way. And it makes no sense to fight about which way is "right" or "best."

m: Oh lilithu thankyou for your understanding, may your path of knowlegde bring you closer to your goal beloved...many blessings to you,:foryou: Hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare, hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare.:flower2:

 

[Arkangel]

I realize that "Hinduism" is a name used to refer to a wide variety of belief systems based on the Vedas. Recognizing that, I will ask this question anyway:

Asside from the Hare Krishnas, are there branches of Hinduism that believe Hinduism to be superior to other religious traditions? All I ever hear or have read from the Vedas seems to support a truly pluralistic view of religion. But I know that even in other non-proselytizing faiths such as Judaism or Buddhism there is some notion that their religion is superior to others. (I do not mean by this that Jews/Buddhists believe that they are better than others; I simply mean that within their scriptures there are some passages that make a claim of special privilege.) And we know this is true for Christianity and Islam. Is there really no trace of this in Hinduism?

Just curious.

There a few extreme fundamentalists but other than that there are no scriptures that suggest that Hindusim is supprior to any other religion.

I can just as well start worshiping Jesus under hindusim and no one will question as to why i am doing it. Buddha is already conisidered an incaranation of Vishnu in South India. The Gita states it clearly that all religions are equal and are the same.

As for as the incarnations go, here is the story on it:
Vishnu has had total of 7 to 8 incarnations and Kali(not the goddes of death) this is from Kali Yug (Male Incarnate of Vishnu yet to come) will be the 8 or 9. It is said that Kali will be born at the end of the Kali yug and will wipe out all evil and Kali yug is almost at its end as per some sources. He will be the anti-hero type not the good god but the Riddick-type-guy-who-will-kick-evils-*** kind of incarnation. This will be the last coming of God. Then will be a golden age for humanity. Mythology is a huge part of Hindusim. I grew up on mythological stories and this one of it.

 

[Arkangel]

Nice to see that Moses is still holding the fort

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

Nice to see that Moses is still holding the fort

m: Oh arkangel why should'nt i ........nice to hear from you as well beloved, how are you?:flower2:

 

[bigvindaloo]

Thanks for your insights into Hinduism. The various paths described are interesting philophically and I will check out their structure. But is conversion to Hinduism acceptable to Hindus? Or can I choose an alternative caste as an untouchable? Are these castes a political rather than a Hindu spiritual reality? Where do I align myself to reconcile the physical reality and temporal consequences of my membership of a caste? So as a Westerner, am I wrong to classify Hinduism if I want to call myself a Hindu by adopting one or other of its philosphies "New Age"? Can I simply join up?

 

[lilithu]

Thanks for your insights into Hinduism. The various paths described are interesting philophically and I will check out their structure. But is conversion to Hinduism acceptable to Hindus? Or can I choose an alternative caste as an untouchable? Are these castes a political rather than a Hindu spiritual reality? Where do I align myself to reconcile the physical reality and temporal consequences of my membership of a caste? So as a Westerner, am I wrong to classify Hinduism if I want to call myself a Hindu by adopting one or other of its philosphies "New Age"? Can I simply join up?

As non-Hindu I can't really answer your questions, but I have a question myself: what do you mean by "New Age." That term is pejorative in some circles.

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

Thanks for your insights into Hinduism. The various paths described are interesting philophically and I will check out their structure. But is conversion to Hinduism acceptable to Hindus? Or can I choose an alternative caste as an untouchable? Are these castes a political rather than a Hindu spiritual reality? Where do I align myself to reconcile the physical reality and temporal consequences of my membership of a caste? So as a Westerner, am I wrong to classify Hinduism if I want to call myself a Hindu by adopting one or other of its philosphies "New Age"? Can I simply join up?

m: Beloved you do not have to concern yourself with caste, that system is not relevant in this age of kali-yuga, as i said before when sri-krsna caitanya mahaprabhu came he gave the maha-mantra to anyone willing to receive, it did not matter what your caste was as long as you came with a heart to serve God all was well, and that is the example that i follow.:flower2:

 

[bigvindaloo]

As non-Hindu I can't really answer your questions, but I have a question myself: what do you mean by "New Age." That term is pejorative in some circles.

Hi. By "New Age" I mean modern interpretation I suppose. This is not perjorative, as I believe all belief systems are subject to interpretation no doubt. In relation to "generosity in Hinduism", is this a modern concept? How does this stack up against Hinduism as practiced by Indians. Is the wearing down of the importance of the caste system a spiritual change or due to corrosive materialism. Is it unreasonable to call a standpoint that seems particularly Western and recent towards Hinduism "New Age"?

 

[Milind2469]

Hindu by the name itself means the society/ culture near the river Sindhu.
We are not a religion. (We are made out to be because of other man made religions, to differenciate from them). When there was no religion, Hinduism was there. Then there were different religions later. When they became aware of the world around, they felt a need to name this culture in this part of the world, which they called Sindhu culture which later became Hindus.
Sindhu, the river is in PAkistan now.

 

[Milind2469]

And yes, since there was no religion at the time of the old Hindu culture, there was no provision to convert anyone to the religion, because it was not a religion first of all, and there were only two types of people, people from this culture and others.

If you create a new religion, you feel a need to expand, spread among the existing peoples.

 

[lilithu]

Hindu by the name itself means the society/ culture near the river Sindhu.
We are not a religion. (We are made out to be because of other man made religions, to differenciate from them). When there was no religion, Hinduism was there. Then there were different religions later. When they became aware of the world around, they felt a need to name this culture in this part of the world, which they called Sindhu culture which later became Hindus.
Sindhu, the river is in PAkistan now.

Yes, I have heard this. But I would argue that this is a product of happenstance - the fact that it was allowed to develop for a long time without contact with others. In every indigenous belief system from those of the Native Americans to the Mauri, they did not call their "religion" a religion. It was their way of life - not just a set of beliefs or practices. "Religion" is a social construct that we only recognize when we come into contact with those significantly different than our own. That's probably the case for all social constructs - like nationality, race, gender... And sometimes we forget that and the social construct takes on a life of its own. But they are still useful.

 

[Milind2469]

Yes, I have heard this. But I would argue that this is a product of happenstance - the fact that it was allowed to develop for a long time without contact with others. In every indigenous belief system from those of the Native Americans to the Mauri, they did not call their "religion" a religion. It was their way of life - not just a set of beliefs or practices. "Religion" is a social construct that we only recognize when we come into contact with those significantly different than our own. That's probably the case for all social constructs - like nationality, race, gender... And sometimes we forget that and the social construct takes on a life of its own. But they are still useful.

You are 100% true.
What i mean to say is there was a time in the history when everyone belonged to this culture. Then they separated. Then forgot the original culture. (there are still glimpses/ traces of this culture in every part of the world, in fact that is my intention to join this forum, to collect evidences). Then there was some dark era. Then there was a savior who gave a shape to the prevalent culture in their society and thus a new religion started. This repeated in many places.
Does this sound very shocking to you?

 

[lilithu]

You are 100% true.
What i mean to say is there was a time in the history when everyone belonged to this culture. Then they separated. Then forgot the original culture. (there are still glimpses/ traces of this culture in every part of the world, in fact that is my intention to join this forum, to collect evidences). Then there was some dark era. Then there was a savior who gave a shape to the prevalent culture in their society and thus a new religion started. This repeated in many places.
Does this sound very shocking to you?

No. Was it meant to be shocking? As far as I can tell, all new religions are born partly in reaction to the excesses or perceived excesses (at the time) of an older religion.

 

[Milind2469]

No. Was it meant to be shocking? As far as I can tell, all new religions are born partly in reaction to the excesses or perceived excesses (at the time) of an older religion.

True.
So 'religions' if you call so are born out of reaction.
Political- social set ups such as the Hinduism was not.
That's why we don't find, one God, one holy book, one faith, institution such as Catholicism, hierarchy in religious leaders (low-high levels), methodology to expand the 'faith', fear of getting out of the system if we don't follow certain rules, etc etc

 

[Milind2469]

No one is forced to worship God in Hinduism. Those who choose to do so can follow certain rules. This was the basis for castes although it took a bad turn later.
But the beauty still remains that even if you don't worship God, you are a true Hindu. Are there any other religion to have such flexibility? Unfortunately I don't have good knowledge about other religions.

 

[Valjean]

No one is forced to worship God in Hinduism. Those who choose to do so can follow certain rules. This was the basis for castes although it took a bad turn later.
But the beauty still remains that even if you don't worship God, you are a true Hindu. Are there any other religion to have such flexibility? Unfortunately I don't have good knowledge about other religions.

How is the worship of God the basis for castes?

 

[Milind2469]

Good question. Thanks for that.
If worshipping is bowing your head before an idol, then anybody can do it.
However, in Puranic times, Hindus regarded the supreme power as Brahma, the chaitanya, energy, worshipping it meant sacrificing materialism, tapasya, following strict rules (such as no non-veg, intoxicating drinks, bramhacharya etc) which may not be accepted by all. So those who seek true God for self realisation, (Brahma seeker becomes a Brahmin, the caste) can folow that path. Others can learn from his teachings.

 

[Valjean]

I suspect caste became religiously sanctioned after already existing social classes became formalized and entrenched.

One of the major functions of religion has always been to preserve the existing, ideal social order. Scriptural principles are conveniently cherry-picked.