Is Hinduism a religion

[Gaura Priya]

For sure... I say my prayers for the most part in English because my Sanskrit sucks. My co-worker said the same thing about his wife. Her Sanskrit is so bad she does puja in Gujarati. He said the pujaris even use English in temple.

I was speaking about additional Scripture. Besides your basic Upanishads, Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, etc. you have additional Scriptures in the particular lineage. For example, in my Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage, we have many new Scriptures such as the Chaitanya-charitamrta, Chaitanya-bhagavata, Brahma-samhita, Upadeshamrta, Ujjvala-nilamani, Hari-bhakti-vilasa, Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, and the list goes on and on. XD

But yes, prayers can be said in any language, although for us 'Hare Krishnas,' we still try to say certain shlokas in Bengali and Sanskrit. But even just memorising the translations, and one's own heartfelt prayers is good enough... vandanam is one of the processes of bhakti-yoga.

There was one lady at the temple who is a Fiji Indian, and since she can not pronounce Bengali well, she reads Bhaktivinode Thakur's kirtanas in the English translations prayerfully before work. And another lady, which we do consider crazy, this Brazilian woman would sometimes come to the temple for darshana, and would start talking right to our Radha-Krishna Deities about her day, how some man was being mean to her, etc. XD And then give obeisances and leave.

Tamil is Dravidian, Hindi, Sanskrit and Bengali, e.g. are IE, I'm sure you know. I wanted to impart to the o.p. that the Abrahamic and Vedic scriptures are so different, as to have been written down in totally unrelated languages, in totally different cultures and environments and not just translated.

Another noteworthy thing I've noticed is that many Vedic literatures are supplemented by some bhashya, or commentary on a certain work. While Abrahamics generally shy away from even making some interpretation, since interpretation necessarily means desire to be the correct idea, Vedic commentaries are to add to one's understanding of certain texts and supplement our spiritual knowledge. They may be limited by time, place and circumstance of the acharya or guru of that time period, but they still have importance!

Yes, it's really only Talmudic scholars that still debate and interpret and re-interpret the Hebrew bible. For Christians and Muslims, it's a done deal.

And Baha'is as well.

 

[A-ManESL]

What do you mean by this?

Hi Madhuri,

What I mean is that the men and women of God following the Hindu traditions did not adopt this method of using linguistic, or archaeological tools to decide that their scriptures are different from non-Vedic scriptures, and hence such assumptions are a priory flawed. Rather the comparison was (if ever) made on an inner spiritual understanding of the gist of the traditions which can be shown by many sources to have been found quite the same(such as by Ramakrishna). The differences, if they exist, were on a theological scale and withered away on higher spiritual levels where these saints resided.

In my own experience (not through study) I have found Quran and the Gita to be spiritually the same.

 

[ConfusedKuri]

I always considered Hinduism to be a way of life, because some of its teachings are applicable to every human-being.

 

[Madhuri]

because some of its teachings are applicable to every human-being.

:yes:
All of it's teachings are applicable to all human beings.

 

[Madhuri]

In my own experience (not through study) I have found Quran and the Gita to be spiritually the same.

It could be. It comes down to interpretation. There are people who also think the Bible can be interpreted to have the same messages as Hindu philosophy. But most Christians, and most Muslim (I suspect), and most Hindus even would not agree. For on the surface, the words are not the same and too many people are unwilling to delve deeper than the very most shallow surface.

 

[atanu]

In my own experience (not through study) I have found Quran and the Gita to be spiritually the same.

I agree fully, knowing fully (again) that I have been detested by a few for this.

 

[Onkara]

I agree fully, knowing fully (again) that I have been detested by a few for this.

If it helps, I also agree that theologically there are strong similarities. Although the language, practices and paraphernalia are what make them distinctly different e.g. eating pork.

 

[kaisersose]

I agree fully, knowing fully (again) that I have been detested by a few for this.

Does the Quran talk about rebirth?
Does the Quran talk about an eternal soul without a beginning?
Does the Quran accept Krishna as an avatar or the Supreme being?
Does the Quran talk about varnashrama Dharma?
Does the Quran take a position on Jnana Yoga?

Without any of this, if one still sees the Quran and the BG as the same, then I would say that person will see any two scriptures as the same - regardless of their content. So it is not really the case that scripture A <=> Scripture B, but that the person has a preconceived notion that they must all be the same or else the tough question of "who is correct?" needs to be addressed. By taking the position that they are all the same, this question is dismissed.

 

[Jainarayan]

What I mean is that the men and women of God following the Hindu traditions did not adopt this method of using linguistic, or archaeological tools to decide that their scriptures are different from non-Vedic scriptures,

No, they didn't. I said it based on my studies of linguistics. During Vedic and biblical times, both cultures knew virtually nothing of each other, except possibly what information was carried by traders on the Silk Road. So they could not have made any determination on similarities or diffrences in their scriptures.

A thorough reading of Vedic v. Abrahamic scriptures provides glaring differences. One is not related to the other. Nothing in Vedic scripture talks about death penalties or the fires of Hell.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2588966-post12.html

The Judeo-Christian bible has many elements taken from Mesopotamian stories and mythology, which pre-dates the bible by a milennium or two. The bible is strongly legalistic, many laws resembling the Code of Hammurabi; the Vedas are mostly hymns and prayers mixed with stories of the deities, and are not legalistic in any sense.

None of Hindu Scriptures lay down divine laws as in "thou shalt..." and "thou shalt not..." Those are strictly of Mesopotamian origin.

Rather the comparison was (if ever) made on an inner spiritual understanding of the gist of the traditions which can be shown by many sources to have been found quite the same(such as by Ramakrishna).

Not all Hindus accept the teachings of all the rishis and gurus. Vaishnavas generally don't accept the teaching of Adi Shankara on Advaita, for example, but other sects do.

Only in the four synoptic gospels of the New Testament is there any talk of love and forgiveness, love of and devotion to God, and ahimsa, all by Jesus. Even Paul is to be taken with a grain of salt for his legalistic writings. He was, after all, a citizen of the Roman Empire, whose laws and culture influenced him greatly. Most of the epistles of Peter, et. al. are reiterations of Jesus's teachings for those who didn't hear Jesus speak.

If you want to make comparisons, compare the Bhagavad Gita to the gospels. Even then there is a glaring difference in Sri Krishna's instructions to Arjuna that if it's Arjuna's dharma to fight, then he must. Jesus said to avoid conflict at all costs.

Moreover, there is nothing in the bible that comes even remotely close to the Srimad Bhagavatam, especially Canto X, the life of Sri Krishna.

The Old Testament is rife with death and destruction and God demanding that cities be destroyed, down to the last man, woman, child and livestock (the destruction of Jericho). There is plenty of smiting and bloodshed in the Qur'an also.

Any similarities between Vedic and Abrahamic scriptures are purely superficial and coincidental.

 

[Jainarayan]

For on the surface, the words are not the same and too many people are unwilling to delve deeper than the very most shallow surface.

Even on the surface it can be pretty scary. Going deeper you lose even more of a connection between Vedic and Abrahamic scriptures.

 

[Jainarayan]

Does the Quran talk about rebirth?
Does the Quran talk about an eternal soul without a beginning?
Does the Quran accept Krishna as an avatar or the Supreme being?
Does the Quran talk about varnashrama Dharma?
Does the Quran take a position on Jnana Yoga?

Without any of this, if one still sees the Quran and the BG as the same, then I would say that person will see any two scriptures as the same - regardless of their content. So it is not really the case that scripture A <=> Scripture B, but that the person has a preconceived notion that they must all be the same or else the tough question of "who is correct?" needs to be addressed. By taking the position that they are all the same, this question is dismissed.

Yes, and we must apply those questions to the bible also.

Christianity does not accept rebirth, only the resurrection of the body and soul. I believe this is a tenet of Islam also.

Christian tradition holds that a soul is created at the time of conception and can be destroyed by God, if He so chooses.

In Christianity, Krishna is a false god, not even a prophet.

There is no talk in Christianity about the relationship of the soul as part of God as there is in Advaita, VishistAdvaita, Achintya BhedAbheda. The soul is at the mercy of God's laws and is distinct from God, only having been created in "God's image" as spirit. That's what the line in Genesis means: "Let Us (the "royal we") create Man in Our own image", as a spirit.

God punishes or rewards; there is no such thing as karma in Christianity or Islam.

Indeed, to say that all scriptures are the same or similar renders this discussion a non-issue. I don't believe it's a non-issue because as I said above, I see little similarity between Vedic v. Abrahamic scriptures.

Moreover, Hindu scriptures are constantly evolving and being interpreted. The closest that Abrahamic scriptures comes to that is the Talmudic debates and interpretations. The Christian bible and Qur'an are done deals, which I think I said further up.

 

[Madhuri]

Even on the surface it can be pretty scary. Going deeper you lose even more of a connection between Vedic and Abrahamic scriptures.

I think the opposite. I think going deeper we find that the Abrahamic theology is more similar to Vedic than if we take only a shallow interpretation.

 

[zenzero]

Friend A-Man..,

Is Hinduism a religion

It is surprising that one living in India still asks such questions.
However though this has been discussed many times can be repeated till eternity.
Hinduism is not the correct word; it is *sanatan dharma*. The label *hinduism* and *hindus* were coined to disntiguish the differring culture of people living on the other side of the river *sindh* which includes everyone including practioners of various paths and ways to realize what one IS!
Sanatan dharma means eternal laws of existence and there are as many ways as people and each individual follows those laws or tries to be in tune with them in his own way and so every human follows that DHARMA which is SANATAN.
Whatever be one's way of life one is a follower of the eternal dharma.

Love & rgds

 

[rewa]

Dictionary dot com defines Religion as
[ri-lij-uhn]
noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Let us consider this definition for now. Hinduism has a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It considers the universe as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. It has devotional and ritual observances. It also has a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Therefore by this definition Hinduism is a religion.
Is there another definition you had in mind? If you could go on to explain what your definition of religion is, we could discuss whether Hinduism fits your definition or not.

 

[A-ManESL]

As I said before theological differences are bound to exist. The inner meaning (and the thrust) of the scriptures is what is to be compared. Those who seek to find unity on the theological scale may be disappointed. On the other hand those who are reading the scripture the way they were initially meant to be read: with the eye of the heart will however find exactly the same things couched in different languages .

Before God begins his song in the Mahabharata, he says to Arjuna, that if you were true to dharma you would find peace on the battlefield as well. Similarly when Muslims use the word peace in their day to day life (the Muslim greeting is "peace") it is not the peace related to the absence of war, but the peace of being in harmony(surrender) with God by synchronizing their spirits with him. In that sense the whole world (except man) is already at peace since the rest of the world follows the deen (cf dharma) in which it has been positioned by God. (The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise; but ye understand not their praise-Quran 17:44). I think this is exactly the kind of peace that Lord Krishna was asking Arjuna to have: of coming to terms with what is real Real,the atman (called as rooh in the Islamic sense) and to realize what is temporal, i.e. the ego (which is called nafs in the Islamic sense).

The essence of the song seems to me precisely this: realize what is real and absolute and realize what is not. The essence of the Quran (from one of my other posts) is also the same:

Islam fundamentally consists of two statements: "There is no divinity (or reality or absolute) save the sole Divinity (or Reality or Absolute)" and "Muhammad is the Messenger (the spokesman, the intermediary, the manifestation, the symbol) of the Divinity." There are two assertions here: the first is regarding the Principle or the Absolute. Realizing it means to become fully conscious that the Principle alone is real and the world (though has an existence) is not really real. The second assertion is not as much concerning the individual personality of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) but rather regarding the world (for in his character as a human being Muhammad(pbuh) symbolizes the world; he is often referred to as a universal man or the perfect man (insaan-e-kamil) for that reason, indeed all worldly qualities are latent inside human beings). The world is a manifestation of the Reality, and hence to a certain degree it has a reality contingent upon the Absolute Reality. Realizing this assertion means seeing the Absolute Reality everywhere and everything in Him.

If Islam merely sought to teach that there is only one God and not two or more it would not have such a persuasive force which enabled it to last for centuries. The persuasive force it has comes from the fact that at its root Islam is all about the reality of the Absolute and the dependence of all things on the Absolute. Indeed, Islam is the religion of the Absolute.

When the song ends, Lord Krishna addresses Arjuna as such:

Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you the most confidential part of knowledge. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit. Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

That is precisely the kind of surrender to God Muslims all over the world try to imbibe.

Regards

 

[A-ManESL]

Dictionary dot com defines Religion as
[ri-lij-uhn]
noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Let us consider this definition for now. Hinduism has a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It considers the universe as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. It has devotional and ritual observances. It also has a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Therefore by this definition Hinduism is a religion.
Is there another definition you had in mind? If you could go on to explain what your definition of religion is, we could discuss whether Hinduism fits your definition or not.

What my initial point was that I fail to realize how Hinduism fits the definition when "its set of beliefs" is inclusive of all beliefs. In that sense, it includes all religions and hence the term religion itself loses meaning.

 

[atanu]

Does the Quran talk about rebirth?
Does the Quran talk about an eternal soul without a beginning?
Does the Quran accept Krishna as an avatar or the Supreme being?
Does the Quran talk about varnashrama Dharma?
Does the Quran take a position on Jnana Yoga?

Without any of this, if one still sees the Quran and the BG as the same, then I would say that person will see any two scriptures as the same - regardless of their content. So it is not really the case that scripture A <=> Scripture B, but that the person has a preconceived notion that they must all be the same or else the tough question of "who is correct?" needs to be addressed. By taking the position that they are all the same, this question is dismissed.

I agree. If they were same then they would not be called by different names.

By that account, I also support you that vaisnavism and saivism are two different religions, since vaisnavas in South India may consider even taking Shiva's name a no-no. Similarly all six darshanas of Hinduism are different.

But the point was not that.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think the opposite. I think going deeper we find that the Abrahamic theology is more similar to Vedic than if we take only a shallow interpretation.

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Seriously, why do you think they have similarities? I'm gun-shy about the God of the bible who is always smiting and afflicting people. Not to mention the complete contrast at the level of God and soul.

 

[Madhuri]

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Seriously, why do you think they have similarities? I'm gun-shy about the God of the bible who is always smiting and afflicting people. Not to mention the complete contrast at the level of God and soul.

Because devotees of the Abrahamic religions who go deeper do not see that God as a smiting, sadistic dude. They look into the allegorical, and see deeper meanings behind the stories. Sometimes the explanations given come really close to our Vedic understanding.

I've had a lot of very good conversations with the Jews on this forum and am impressed with their knowledge and understanding and can draw many similarities between my understanding and theirs.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Because devotees of the Abrahamic religions who go deeper do not see that God as a smiting, sadistic dude. They look into the allegorical, and see deeper meanings behind the stories. Sometimes the explanations given come really close to our Vedic understanding.

I've had a lot of very good conversations with the Jews on this forum and am impressed with their knowledge and understanding and can draw many similarities between my understanding and theirs.

"Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory."
-- 1 Corinthians 10:31

"Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of Kunti, as an offering to Me."
-- Gita 9.27


"To Allah belong the East and the West; whichever direction you turn your face there is the presence of Allah. Surely Allah is All-Embracing and All-Knowing... When my servants question you about Me, tell them that I am very close to them. I answer the prayer of every suppliant when he calls Me; therefore, they should respond to Me and put their trust in Me, so that they may be rightly guided."
-- Qur'an 2:115,186

"A true yogi observes Me in all beings and also sees every being in Me. Indeed, the self-realised person sees Me, the same Supreme Lord, everywhere. For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me."
-- Gita 6.29-30