is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ?

[Asha]

Where are Rama and Krishna in Vedas?

Um ..Err .........Vishnu; The all pervading essence ?!?

Sure, respect Vedas, but do not make Hinduism dependent on Vedas. Hinduism is much more than that.
Advaita by definition should not accept a God different from other things.

Cough ...Splutter ...Gulp

Excuse me I just Fainted !

''So much more'' ?
Ok, so what are we talking about Cultural Hinduism ? or Phylosophies ?

I feel that the Hindu theists are raking up this issue unnecessarily (perhaps because many of them have a background of Abrahamic religions).

I think you are entering a very dangerous area with this line of reasoning.
It is evedent that you have little understanding of the west or for that matter people from what you consider to be Abrahamic backgrounds.

If an atheist shows disrespect to theists, then certainly it is wrong. Hinduism does not allow this. An atheist may have his views and the theists will have different views. Both should respect each other. That is what I understand of Hinduism. 'Matas' are never a problem in India.

I have every respect for others providing that they do not try to corrupt the truth, that in my veiw is Adharma, you are perfectly entitled to your veiw providing you do not try to force it upon others .

surely your Philosophies are merely schools of thought, thought needs some basis of truth or realisation ?

 

[Ravi500]

I voted "neither" because I believe it is both.

I too voted neither because I believe it is both.

Philosophy is essential in the intellectual aspect, and faith is important in the bhakti aspect.

To have a holistic religious life, perhaps you need both. Philosophy is like rice, while faith is like the curry that makes the rice palatable.

m: :eat:

 

[Aupmanyav]

Um .. Err .. Vishnu; The all pervading essence ?!?

That is dodging the question. Vishnu was an Aryan God before assimilation in Hinduism. Rama, Krishna, and others are native Gods.

Cough ...Splutter ...Gulp. Excuse me I just Fainted! ''So much more''? Ok, so what are we talking about Cultural Hinduism ? or Phylosophies?

No, we are talking about Hinduism. What about Yellamma, Hinglaj, or Bahuchara Goddesses? Or Vithoba or Maharashtra, or even Jagannatha of Puri? They are supposed to be initially native Gods. You see, if you have no problem in accepting truth, you will fare better. Honesty, the best policy. 'Satyen Nasti Param Padam' (No station is higher than Truth), so said Lord Rama. Do you think the natives contributed nothing to Hinduism and it is all a gift of Vedas?

 

[Philomath]

What does "accepting the authority of the Vedas" really mean?

Does it mean to accept the Vedas as being divine?

Divine as in being authored by God? Or divine as in being divinely inspired?

Samkhya doesn't believe in God so therefore how can they accept anything as divine?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think it means respecting Vedas as an important scripture. Theist will say it is divine, that also is OK.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is evident that you have little understanding of the west or for that matter people from what you consider to be Abrahamic backgrounds.

I understand that views in West about things differ as much as in Hinduism, what I had in mind was monotheism. We do not have it as much.

surely your Philosophies are merely schools of thought, thought needs some basis of truth or realization?

Where do you think truth would come from? Scriptures or science? I have the realizations.

 

[Philomath]

I think it means respecting Vedas as an important scripture. Theist will say it is divine, that also is OK.

Oh....Ok. I thought it meant seeing the Vedas as authored by God, which I don't believe.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji

That is dodging the question.

that is rich coming from you

I have asked you a lot of questions recently , but sadly Ive recived no answers

Vishnu was an Aryan God before assimilation in Hinduism.

Rama, Krishna, and others are native Gods.No, we are talking about Hinduism. What about Yellamma, Hinglaj, or Bahuchara Goddesses? Or Vithoba or Maharashtra, or even Jagannatha of Puri? They are supposed to be initially native Gods.

''Supposed '' by whos understanding ???

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The religious historian R.C. Dhere, winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award for his book 'Sri Vitthal: Ek Mahasamanvaya', opines that Vithoba worship may be even older - "Vedic or pre-Vedic", hence pre-dating the worship of Krishna. According to this theory, Vithoba is an amalgam of various local heroes, who gave their lives to save their cattle. He was first worshipped by the Dhangar, the cattle-owning caste of Maharashtra."
Vithoba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As per current predominant thought, Jagannath, embodies the metamorphosis of tribal god into a pre-eminent deity of the classical Hindu pantheon. The icon is carved out of wood (not stone or metal), and the tribes whose rituals and traditions were woven into his worship are still living as tribal and semi-tribal communities in the region. This tribal god may have taken a fairly circuitous route to his present pinnacle, via absorption of local shakti traditions and merger with the growing popularity of the Narasimha and Purushottam forms of Vishnu in the region in the medieval era."
Jagannath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are much fewer temples of Vishnu as compared to the temples of his avataras, Varaha, Nrisimha, Rama, Krishna. Vishnu is majorly worshiped as his avataras.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I believe it is 'both' as well, so I abstained from voting.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Ravi500]

That is dodging the question. Vishnu was an Aryan God before assimilation in Hinduism. Rama, Krishna, and others are native Gods.

Wish to state here that Arya means noble or a civilized person in Hinduism. It does not have any racial connotation whatsoever, as made up by the european pseudoscholars in the 19th century.

I have stated this before that it is the tremondous negative karma created by the european scholars in distorting the universalist Arya culture into a race related one lead to the second world war and its results.

All sects of Hinduism are also unanimous in their consensus that Arya means the cultured or civilized one, and does not have any racial connection whatsoever.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have said it earlier also and it is not correct. Aryans were a group of people, many tribes, not a race, they were admixtures of various people that they encountered during their long journeys. What is a race? There is no race in the world. All people are mixtures.

Again, as I have already said, Aryans were in no way universalists. They wanted prosperity for their own and defeat of their enemies. Remember the "krnvante Vishvamaryam" verse, what did it say in the second line?

That Aryans will consider another Arya as civilized/elder/honest/pious person is understandable and natural. They did not praise panis, dasyus, and dasas.

 

[Ravi500]

You have said it earlier also and it is not correct. Aryans were a group of people, many tribes, not a race, they were admixtures of various people that they encountered during their long journeys. What is a race? There is no race in the world. All people are mixtures.

Arya is not a group. It is a culture, and arya has been used various times in the hindu scriptures to denote civilized behaviour.

The Kauravas who disrobed and tried to humiliate Draupadi were termed as unarya for their conduct, while Vidura was stated as an Arya for trying to foster civilized behaviour in the court.

Again, as I have already said, Aryans were in no way universalists. They wanted prosperity for their own and defeat of their enemies.

These are just allegories of light overcoming darkness , misinterpreted as white invaders overcoming black inhabitants and so on by pseudo-scholars, which i see you also parroting.

Also , seeing your 'knowledgeful posts' in other threads , I am not interested in your opinions as well.

The words of the hindu sages , saints and scholars who state that Arya is a culture and not having any racial connotation at all , is more than enough for me.

Remember the "krnvante Vishvamaryam" verse, what did it say in the second line?

Again, you are misinterpreting allegories here.

The focus is on spreading light and spreading aryan culture everywhere and making the whole world noble.

That Aryans will consider another Arya as civilized/elder/honest/pious person is understandable and natural. They did not praise panis, dasyus, and dasas.

They were many tribes, which were considered as arya, and which were demoted to these groups, mainly because of non-performance of vedic rituals.

This was a common factor in the past.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A culture belongs to a group.

I reply to your posts. It is an easy escape route to say that one thing is an allegory and the other thing is true. For example, in the verse in question 'krnvanto vishvamaryam' is truth and 'apaghnanto arāvṇaḥ' (Driving away the godless ones) is an allegory. Very convenient. Even 'krnvanto vishvamaryam' does not mean 'make the whole world Aryan'. The line 'Indram vardhanto apturah krnvanto vishvamaryam' means 'Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength,' as per Ralph Griffith.

I do not know about demotions. What I hear is that there were five tribes coming to India - Anus, Druhyus, Purus, Yadus and Turvasas.

"However, on circumstantial evidence, modern scholars agree that the Anus, Druhyus, Purus, Yadus and Turvasas are the Rigvedic 'Five Peoples'. They are clearly mentioned together in one verse (RV 1.108.8) and substituting Yakshu for Yadu, in another hymn too (RV 7.18)." http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/10-12/features2602.htm

 

[Ravi500]

A culture belongs to a group.

And the culture , usually started by a group of sages, can embrace other groups.

I reply to your posts. It is an easy escape route to say that one thing is an allegory and the other thing is true. For example, in the verse in question 'krnvanto vishvamaryam' is truth and 'apaghnanto arāvṇaḥ' (Driving away the godless ones) is an allegory. Very convenient.

This is the stance of the hindu saints and scholars themselves.

Even 'krnvanto vishvamaryam' does not mean 'make the whole world Aryan'. The line 'Indram vardhanto apturah krnvanto vishvamaryam' means 'Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra's strength,' as per Ralph Griffith.

Yes, by performing noble works make the whole world Arya ( noble ).

I am not interested in foreign commentators . The stance of the hindu scholars and saints are enough for this forum.

This ' krnvanto vishvamaryam' is also the motto of Arya Samaj, which is teachings the vedas and vedic culture to everyone regardless of caste,creed ,race or nationality.

This is what the other hindu institutions are also doing.

What I hear is that there were five tribes coming to India - Anus, Druhyus, Purus (Bharatas), Yadus and Turvasas.

When many hindu scholars have stated that there is no evidence whatsoever for any tribe coming to India, where have you heard this.



The Arya culture in India is universalistic. Otherwise the ancient Israeli tribes fleeing political instability at Israel, would not have been allowed to settle down in India in Kashmir and other parts of India.

The very fact that you, who is of jewish origin, is a Hindu, denotes the universality of the Arya culture.

 

[Kalidas]

I really wish there was a "both" option. They both exist equally in strength in Hinduism and even have strong effects on one another. Hinduism is one of the few "divinely revieled" religions I know of to put such emphasis on knowledge gained by worldly speculation. So both, but probably a little bit more faith than philosophy... but only a little more.

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

I voted neither. As I already mentioned in one of my previous posts, faith, philosophy, and even religion are Western constructs and they should not be applied to something that is not Western. Śraddhā is not faith. Darśana is not philosophy. And Dharma is not religion. Not in the way these terms are commonly understood in the West. Hinduism – to use a convenient but inexact term – is an understanding of empirical reality as a cyclical – instead than linear – phenomena. This understanding has a multiplicity of levels and therefore can accommodate all different interpretations – which are nothing more than the effects of our present Karma. One of the outcomes of this understanding is the Hindu way of life – which itself blossoms into a multitude of lifestyles due to all the different interpretations. Hinduism, thus, is a way of life – based on an understanding of empirical reality as a cyclical phenomena.

Pranāms

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

The very fact that you, who is of jewish origin, is a Hindu, denotes the universality of the Arya culture.

LOL, he's kashmIrI, not Jewish. I don't know why you're still going off about that, do you have an obsession with Judaism or something?

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Shantoham ji :namaste

Namaskāram

I voted neither. As I already mentioned in one of my previous posts, faith, philosophy, and even religion are Western constructs and they should not be applied to something that is not Western.

please forgive my use of the words '' Faith '' and '' Philosophy '' I use them because it is the language commonly spoken here .

surely the principles of Hinduism are beyond the confines of being singularly Eastern or Western ?

Śraddhā is not faith. Darśana is not philosophy. And Dharma is not religion. Not in the way these terms are commonly understood in the West.

with all due respects Sraddha , Darsana and Dharma are understood differently by Hindus and Westerners alike even the understanding or use of the word Philosophy is a subject for debate in the West .

Hinduism – to use a convenient but inexact term – is an understanding of empirical reality as a cyclical – instead than linear – phenomena. This understanding has a multiplicity of levels and therefore can accommodate all different interpretations – which are nothing more than the effects of our present Karma. One of the outcomes of this understanding is the Hindu way of life – which itself blossoms into a multitude of lifestyles due to all the different interpretations. Hinduism, thus, is a way of life – based on an understanding of empirical reality as a cyclical phenomena.

I agree entirely that understanding has a ''multiplicity of levels'' of understanding and therefore inturpretations , and true such levels of understanding are due to our previous Karma , and true that Hinduism as a way of life is as a result of such understanding . But it is exactly these levels of understanding which bring about the Diverse beleifs encompased by Hinduism , ...thus I am saying that we do not have to entirely agree , I am saying that there is room for different undertandings , as it is all things , it is Sraddha , it is Darsana and it is Dharma it is also Sadhana , and yes this is more than faith in its literal sence , it is beleif , it is devotion , it is love , it is surrender , it is the realisation of truth , the tasting of the ultimate fruit of realisation .

anyone who examines the meaning of faith rather than the limitations of the word , will in time realise these subtlties .

rather than saying philosophy I could have chosen to say vijJAna , I will rely upon you to give me a better translation to explain what I wish to say ...
words to explain the difference between that one who accepts the divine origin of the veda , the one who accepts the divine origin of shastra and the one who needs to examine the sience of knowledge to atain wisdom .

but for us to understand the difference between jJAna and bhakti we need to explore the differences between Faith and Philosophy .

Pranāms

Pranams :namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is the stance of the hindu saints and scholars themselves.

Sage or no sage, if anyone takes a wrong stance, correct him/her.

I am not interested in foreign commentators . The stance of the hindu scholars and saints are enough for this forum.

Again, you are disregarding the second line of the verse. An honest foreign commentator is better than a dishonest local Hindu commentator. I know where you are coming from.