Misconceptions about Hinduism

[NobodyYouKnow]

What are we up to?

Myth #7 - Hinduism is Satanic, you all worship The Devil/Siva is the Devil.

Unlike Abrahamic/Monotheistic religions, Hinduism doesn't have a concept of 'Devil' or 'Satan' so we wouldn't know what you are talking about anyway.

It's easy to correlate 'a different way' for 'the wrong way', but get your facts straight before accusing Hindus as being 'Devil Worshipers'.

As for Siva being 'The Devil' (as some have told me He is), people get such a shock when I agree with them and start praising my Lord Bhuteshwara with much gusto...

'God' and 'Devil' are only concepts...words...they don't hold the same significance to a Hindu as they do for a Christian and Muslim...so if people think we are worshiping 'devils', it's only their 'devils' who we wouldn't worship anyway.

Om Namah Shivay

 

[Kalidas]

What are we up to?

Myth #7 - Hinduism is Satanic, you all worship The Devil/Siva is the Devil.

Unlike Abrahamic/Monotheistic religions, Hinduism doesn't have a concept of 'Devil' or 'Satan' so we wouldn't know what you are talking about anyway.

It's easy to correlate 'a different way' for 'the wrong way', but get your facts straight before accusing Hindus as being 'Devil Worshipers'.

As for Siva being 'The Devil' (as some have told me He is), people get such a shock when I agree with them and start praising my Lord Bhuteshwara with much gusto...

'God' and 'Devil' are only concepts...words...they don't hold the same significance to a Hindu as they do for a Christian and Muslim...so if people think we are worshiping 'devils', it's only their 'devils' who we wouldn't worship anyway.

Om Namah Shivay

I may just start meeting this response with "Oh yeah well YOU worship Brahman!"

 

[Aupmanyav]

A big misconception that I have encountered (with special emphasis on pronunciation) is Brahman, Brāhmin, Brahmā, Brahma.

Brahman: The source of universe.
Brāhmin (correct spelling Brāhmana): Priestly cast.
Brahmā: God of creation, one of the Hindu Trinity, acts at the behest of Shiva, Vishnu, or Shakti.
Brahma: Universe, Jagat, Samsara. Also Brahman, depending on the context.

 

[Stormcry]

A big misconception that I have encountered (with special emphasis on pronunciation) is Brahman, Brāhmin, Brahmā, Brahma.

Brahman: The source of universe.
Brāhmin (correct spelling Brāhmana): Priestly cast.
Brahmā: God of creation, one of the Hindu Trinity, acts at the behest of Shiva, Vishnu, or Shakti.
Brahma: Universe, Jagat, Samsara. Also Brahman, depending on the context.

This isn't a misconception. This is a silly thing. In fact, By reading misconceptions, I feel that every misconception about vedic dharma is a silly thing.

Afterall, a misconception should have some genuine level of logic. and Intentionally creating misconceptions about hinsuism is the habit of mlecchas ( non-hindu ) . Because their aim is fixed - To destroy hindu vedic dharma and to convert its followers.

 

[Stormcry]

Abrahamic/Monotheistic religions, Hinduism doesn't have a concept of 'Devil' or 'Satan' so we wouldn't know what you are talking about anyway.

Are you sure ? I would like to know Is there any difference between devil and evil ?

According to me ,In hindu dharma ,there's a concept of evil but not in the way of Those non-vedic man made religions.

In our dharma , asuras and rakshas are representatives of evil. Besides ,kali and his sons mlecchas are also called as lord of evil and He ( kali ) activates only in KaliYuga,his ruling time.

Harihi Govinda

 

[Kalidas]

This isn't a misconception. This is a silly thing. In fact, By reading misconceptions, I feel that every misconception about vedic dharma is a silly thing.

Afterall, a misconception should have some genuine level of logic. and Intentionally creating misconceptions about hinsuism is the habit of mlecchas ( non-hindu ) . Because their aim is fixed - To destroy hindu vedic dharma and to convert its followers.

Well yeah they are silly. That doesn't mean they are not misconceptions not everyone is trying destroy Hinduism some people just get the wronh idea. While yes some people purposely.spread the wrong idea.

 

[punkdbass]

What are we up to?

Myth #7 - Hinduism is Satanic, you all worship The Devil/Siva is the Devil.

Unlike Abrahamic/Monotheistic religions, Hinduism doesn't have a concept of 'Devil' or 'Satan' so we wouldn't know what you are talking about anyway.

It's easy to correlate 'a different way' for 'the wrong way', but get your facts straight before accusing Hindus as being 'Devil Worshipers'.

As for Siva being 'The Devil' (as some have told me He is), people get such a shock when I agree with them and start praising my Lord Bhuteshwara with much gusto...

'God' and 'Devil' are only concepts...words...they don't hold the same significance to a Hindu as they do for a Christian and Muslim...so if people think we are worshiping 'devils', it's only their 'devils' who we wouldn't worship anyway.

Om Namah Shivay

Interesting. Although couldn't it be said that the closest analogy to the "devil" in Hinduism would be "Maya" or "delusion"? In the sense that the devil indirectly brings suffering and chaos but is still under God's control.. Maya indirectly brings suffering and chaos but is still a part of God's Divine Plan. What do you think?

I know Yogananda, who spends much of his work trying to unify Eastern Religion and Western Religion believes that the Devil is analogous to Maya. From a scriptural standpoint I honestly believe this makes sense - all of the crazy personifications of the devil that have been created really don't have much scriptural basis. It is blatantly obvious that if one reads Job, Satan is a worker of God, under God's control, one of his "tools" of creation if you will.

 

[punkdbass]

Question: I feel like today many of us Westerners have a misconception(?) of Drugs being substantially involved in Hinduism. I'm sure Hinduism, being an eternal religion, has it's fare share of followers who dabbled into Shamanism and using plants/herbs to explore spiritual states of consciousness... but my gut tells me that these traditions - if at all present in Hinduism, were merely later inventions that never at all played a pivital role in Hinduism.

For example, trying to link Shiva with cannabis.. I haven't researched it enough really but my gut tells me that whatever plant was associated with Shiva is not literally cannabis but is symbolic for something like divine wisdom. For example, the vast majority of the world does not read that verse in the New Testament in Revelations about herbs and associate it with cannabis.. only a very, very small proportion of the world (namely Rastafarians) interpret the verse this way. I could be wrong though, and hence why I'm asking this question.

Anyways, did drugs ever play a pivatol role in Hinduism or was it more of a later invented tradition that was for the most part divergent of the core paths and teachings of Hinduism? Let me explain what I mean by "divergent" - if you look at Buddhism for example, of course there were Buddhists throughout the ages that dabbled in shamanism and using drugs for spiritual reasons... but if you study the core teachings and principles of Buddhism, it's blatantly obvious that such drug use diverges from these principles; Buddha's 5 precepts prohibit intoxicants/drugs.. I don't think it could anymore obvious that such traditions were for the most part divergent of Buddhism at its core.

 

[Kalidas]

Interesting. Although couldn't it be said that the closest analogy to the "devil" in Hinduism would be "Maya" or "delusion"? In the sense that the devil indirectly brings suffering and chaos but is still under God's control.. Maya indirectly brings suffering and chaos but is still a part of God's Divine Plan. What do you think?

I know Yogananda, who spends much of his work trying to unify Eastern Religion and Western Religion believes that the Devil is analogous to Maya. From a scriptural standpoint I honestly believe this makes sense - all of the crazy personifications of the devil that have been created really don't have much scriptural basis. It is blatantly obvious that if one reads Job, Satan is a worker of God, under God's control, one of his "tools" of creation if you will.

I still would not equate that to the Devil. Its a mindless object that simply exists(though honestly I don't know why). I think the only thing you can even remotely equate to a "devil" at all would be aharma.

 

[Vinayaka]

Question: I feel like today many of us Westerners have a misconception(?) of Drugs being substantially involved in Hinduism. I'm sure Hinduism, being an eternal religion, has it's fare share of followers who dabbled into Shamanism and using plants/herbs to explore spiritual states of consciousness... but my gut tells me that these traditions - if at all present in Hinduism, were merely later inventions that never at all played a pivital role in Hinduism.

For example, trying to link Shiva with cannabis.. I haven't researched it enough really but my gut tells me that whatever plant was associated with Shiva is not literally cannabis but is symbolic for something like divine wisdom. For example, the vast majority of the world does not read that verse in the New Testament in Revelations about herbs and associate it with cannabis.. only a very, very small proportion of the world (namely Rastafarians) interpret the verse this way. I could be wrong though, and hence why I'm asking this question.

Anyways, did drugs ever play a pivatol role in Hinduism or was it more of a later invented tradition that was for the most part divergent of the core paths and teachings of Hinduism? Let me explain what I mean by "divergent" - if you look at Buddhism for example, of course there were Buddhists throughout the ages that dabbled in shamanism and using drugs for spiritual reasons... but if you study the core teachings and principles of Buddhism, it's blatantly obvious that such drug use diverges from these principles; Buddha's 5 precepts prohibit intoxicants/drugs.. I don't think it could anymore obvious that such traditions were for the most part divergent of Buddhism at its core.

Your gut is correct. Drugs are not common at all in Hinduism. It's another myth. Thanks for the input.

 

[punkdbass]

I still would not equate that to the Devil. Its a mindless object that simply exists(though honestly I don't know why). I think the only thing you can even remotely equate to a "devil" at all would be aharma.

Fair enough, although I guess I'm just trying to say that such interpretations of the Devil as a "mindless" object, akin to Maya, certainly do have a place with Judaism and Christianity, although predominantly moreso in Judaism - for in Judaism there is no personable, "mind" called Devil - so I think strong arguments can be made for an analogy between Devil and Maya, for what it's worth.

What is "aharma"? I have not heard such a term.

Your gut is correct. Drugs are not common at all in Hinduism. It's another myth. Thanks for the input.

Ah the joy of clear intuition (if only I had more of it ha).. thanks for your response.

 

[Kalidas]

Fair enough, although I guess I'm just trying to say that such interpretations of the Devil as a "mindless" object, akin to Maya, certainly do have a place with Judaism and Christianity, although predominantly moreso in Judaism - for in Judaism there is no personable, "mind" called Devil - so I think strong arguments can be made for an analogy between Devil and Maya, for what it's worth.

What is "aharma"? I have not heard such a term.


Ah the joy of clear intuition (if only I had more of it ha).. thanks for your response.

Sorry i meant adharma. Dharma is the presiding ideal that decides how we should act. Dharma is our duty and we should do our dutu as if for God so in every action you do think not of the results but of acting in a way favorable to God. Adharma would be actions that are filled with egotistical ideas like selfishness,greed,lust, etc etc etc

 

[punkdbass]

Sorry i meant adharma. Dharma is the presiding ideal that decides how we should act. Dharma is our duty and we should do our dutu as if for God so in every action you do think not of the results but of acting in a way favorable to God. Adharma would be actions that are filled with egotistical ideas like selfishness,greed,lust, etc etc etc

Interesting, thanks for your explanation. I could see how Adharma could be moreso easily related to "evil" or the "devil" as you said.

 

[Kalidas]

Interesting, thanks for your explanation. I could see how Adharma could be moreso easily related to "evil" or the "devil" as you said.

And its not an outside evil force but comes from within. Even then its not really "evil" evilness is not a big concept in Hinduism. There are actions that are beneficial for spiritual growth and actions that hinder. Its just as time went on these acts that hinder began to take on the terms such as evil, and bad by people as a way to add a social stigma to them so that they may be discouraged. Now sadly that we are in the Kali Yuga certain things that were once seen as adharma have become "good". Things like Greed have twisted and transformed in the Western world into Capitalism to be good and beneficial.

But this is another discussion for another thread. That would be a fun one though "Does Evilness exist?"

 

[punkdbass]

And its not an outside evil force but comes from within. Even then its not really "evil" evilness is not a big concept in Hinduism. There are actions that are beneficial for spiritual growth and actions that hinder. Its just as time went on these acts that hinder began to take on the terms such as evil, and bad by people as a way to add a social stigma to them so that they may be discouraged. Now sadly that we are in the Kali Yuga certain things that were once seen as adharma have become "good". Things like Greed have twisted and transformed in the Western world into Capitalism to be good and beneficial.

But this is another discussion for another thread. That would be a fun one though "Does Evilness exist?"

Interesting. What you said about how there are actions that hinder spiritual growth - and that over time such actions became associated with terms such as "evil" in order to add negative stigma to them (in hope that people would avoid them) makes sense to me. I like Yogananda's definition of "evil" - "anything that causes man to lose the consciousness of his essential unity with God and that obstructs attainment of God-realization... manifesting as inharmonies in man and nature." In this sense evil is not a literal inherent thing in creation but is a term used to refer to anything that further deludes man to realization of his unity with God - and hence is highly relative of course.

 

[Vinayaka]

Interesting. What you said about how there are actions that hinder spiritual growth - and that over time such actions became associated with terms such as "evil" in order to add negative stigma to them (in hope that people would avoid them) makes sense to me. I like Yogananda's definition of "evil" - "anything that causes man to lose the consciousness of his essential unity with God and that obstructs attainment of God-realization... manifesting as inharmonies in man and nature." In this sense evil is not a literal inherent thing in creation but is a term used to refer to anything that further deludes man to realization of his unity with God - and hence is highly relative of course.

The evil of western faiths, and the 'evil' of eastern faiths are really different. Because there is no word for it in the west that westerners would understand, Yogananda and others used 'evil' , because it's the closest thing he could relate adharma to. Similarly, dissolution becomes destruction, avatar becomes saviour, etc. So one has to read the meaning (as you have with Yogananda's definition). It often leads to misconceptions though, and sometimes I wish the original Sanskrit was used.

 

[Vinayaka]

Myth: You can't convert to Hinduism.
Fact: You can.

 

[punkdbass]

The evil of western faiths, and the 'evil' of eastern faiths are really different. Because there is no word for it in the west that westerners would understand, Yogananda and others used 'evil' , because it's the closest thing he could relate adharma to. Similarly, dissolution becomes destruction, avatar becomes saviour, etc. So one has to read the meaning (as you have with Yogananda's definition). It often leads to misconceptions though, and sometimes I wish the original Sanskrit was used.

I actually understanding where you are coming from here and I sympathize with you - this is why explaining concepts that were formulated under one language system to people who have been brought up in another language system can be so difficult - but needless to say I think the attempt to do so is very worthwhile... In my own experience, it has helped me to understand and realize things that I have been unable to see through Western culture alone.

I really wish I knew a more non-dual language than English. English is increadibly dualistic and obsessive with the Subject-Predicate relationship which preconditions us to constantly think in terms of "us" and "them", "this" and "that"... it conditions us to think in terms of static, concrete things rather than fluid, dynamic processes. Alan Watts helped bring my attention to this phenomena I'm describing, and If I remember correctly, he said that Chinese for example is a lot more non-dual, for in Chinese there really arent such things as "concrete nouns" rather what we think of as nouns in Chinese are more like processes or verbs. It's amazing how language inadvertantly conditions an entire society to be preconditioned to thinking certain ways.. hence why it is so difficult at first for Westerners to try to understand Eastern culture, at least that's what I think.

Anyways, so my question here is: ... in the manner I've described above, would you say Sanskrit is more non-dual or is it similar to English in it's emphasis on Subject-Predicate relationship? I can only assume, in my little knowledge of Sanskrit thus far, that it would be similar to Chinese in the manner I've described above.

 

[Vinayaka]

this is why explaining concepts that were formulated under one language system to people who have been brought up in another language system can be so difficult -

The indigenous peoples of North America didn't have a word for 'ownership' . Look what happened because of it.

Language often plays an incredibly important role in culture and religion, oft overlooked.

 

[Maya3]

The evil of western faiths, and the 'evil' of eastern faiths are really different. Because there is no word for it in the west that westerners would understand, Yogananda and others used 'evil' , because it's the closest thing he could relate adharma to. Similarly, dissolution becomes destruction, avatar becomes saviour, etc. So one has to read the meaning (as you have with Yogananda's definition). It often leads to misconceptions though, and sometimes I wish the original Sanskrit was used.

This is very important and I agree that it would be better to use original Sanskrit.

We just don´t have these concepts at all that are so common in Abraham faiths, it´s very liberating.

I would like it if this thread moved to comparative religion, or another place where non Hindus sees it. We all know all this, but it would be good if people who have misconceptions could learn from it.

Maya