Objections against Hinduism?

[Aupmanyav]

1) do Hindus take a position on LGBT rights?
2) do Hindus believe we have a responsibility to protect the environment?

1) I do not think there is any scriptural poition against it. And if we were to see the temple panel, it is very much there, in all old temples. The general Hindu position for LGBT as well a Heteros is that do your thing, we do not mind it, but do not try to hog the lime-light. It is something which should be restricted to your bed-rooms. Just my opinion. 2) Hindus are supposed to be very pro-active for environment, to the extent that we ask the children not to pluck even a leaf from trees or shrubs without reason. All nature is divine to us.

 

[wizanda]

It is natural growth. Why should we prune it?

Anthropomorphized religion is a natural growth of materialistic beings; away from the Divine in my understanding....Therefore a reason to reject part of the Hindu belief.

Do you mean how many Gods and Goddesses?

In someways that was the question; yet was curious if anyone knew how many key Avatars there are in the Hindu Pantheon?

Basically in the Biblical text it says 24 elders, in Greek there were 12, the Romans had 12 as well, the Egyptians had nine, etc.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Sayak ji

Hinduism is very open to all science. While some groups (basically the people who follow ISKON) reject some aspects of science like evolutionary biology, most other Hindu-s do accept it and see nothing contradictory between the science as practiced in the world and their own religion.
God or Darwin? The world in evolution beliefs
85% of Indians think its possible to believe both in God and Darwin's theory. Majority who agree will be Hindu-s (as Muslim Indians reject it). Of course not many in India know the ideas behind evolution well. So a better comparison will be with Hindus who live in the West. 80 % of them belief in evolutionary theory and in particular believe that humans also evolved in a similar manner.

Belief in evolution by religious tradition

For Buddhists this is 86%, Jews 81% and Nones 82%. No other group is higher.

where do you get these figures from ?

you site that 80% of western Hindus beleive in Darwins theory of evolution , ...is this just because they have had received a secular education ? therfore beleif in Darwinism , in a high percentage of these Hindu will be purely indoctrination

when you considder that acording to 2015 cencus 1,018,094,638 Hindus live in India 79% of India's population

and according to wickipedia 2010 estimation there are 1,080,000,000 hindus world wide

Hindus in europe equal a mere......0.214%
Hindus in the Americas.simarly......0.263%
Hindus in Asia ..............................................99.266%
in Africa...........................................0.213%
in Oceana ........................................0.06%


this 80% of western Hindus that you site even if these are the
all non Asian situated Hindus these only amount to 0.768%of all Hindus , .....so to say that 80% of this very small percentage is inconsequential

and if you say that 85% of Indians think that it is possible to beleive in Darwins theory and their own Gods symultaniously how much of this is a willingness towards acceptance of modern materialistic values , ...you may also ask how many Indian Hindus truely understand the vedic sciences ? after all the large majority of Hindus allways have accept the knowledge of their preistly classes without question .

 

[Jumi]

I don't know much about Hinduism other than that it tolerates a commendable multitude of viewpoints within itself.

 

[Vinayaka]

Therefore a reason to reject part of the Hindu belief.

Everyone is free to reject any or all Hindu belief. We Hindus aren't proselytisers or stuck in some idea that people should agree with us. If you're not Hindu, then most likely you really shouldn't.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anthropomorphized religion is a natural growth of materialistic beings; away from the Divine in my understanding....Therefore a reason to reject part of the Hindu belief.

We do not reject anything that is Hindu. Rejecting what is valued by other Hindus will necessitate conflict and cruelty (cutting heads and breaking idols). Let the monotheist religions do it.

In someways that was the question; yet was curious if anyone knew how many key Avatars there are in the Hindu Pantheon?

In case of avataras of Vishnu, nine till now, and one to come later after 426,000 years.

 

[Vinayaka]

We do not reject anything that is Hindu.

I think 'reject' is an odd word. What is your view on it? For example, it seems to me that since you're an atheist, you've personally rejected the belief in Gods, no?

So maybe we could find more definitive words? Disagree with? Don't personally adhere to? or similar phrasings to aid in understanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, I (or other Hindus) do not reject it, are not supposed to reject it out-right, though they may not agree to it. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti' (nice people explain it variously).

 

[wizanda]

'Vipra bahudha vadanti' (nice people explain it variously).

Which was my first objection, that then basically anyone could make up more texts, claim it vaguely has something to do with Hinduism, and it will be accepted.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which was my first objection, that then basically anyone could make up more texts, claim it vaguely has something to do with Hinduism, and it will be accepted.

Happens all the time with individual sampradayas, and Guru paramparas. Those individuals who do have personal Gurus see their Guru's teachings as a sort of scripture for sure. Most, but not all, don't see this view as applicable to all others though. Every individual within Hinduism has their own hierarchy of scriptures, really 'owning' some, respecting others from a distance, and outright rejecting still others.

All this would naturally be of little importance to non-Hindus, just as all the various divisions and philosophical disagreements within Christianity would be of little or no interest to us.

So if someone did write some text, (and its been done, especially in the commentary way) we Hindus are free to object, not read, or take it to heart if we want to.

 

[sayak83]

Namaskaram Sayak ji



where do you get these figures from ?

you site that 80% of western Hindus beleive in Darwins theory of evolution , ...is this just because they have had received a secular education ? therfore beleif in Darwinism , in a high percentage of these Hindu will be purely indoctrination

when you considder that acording to 2015 cencus 1,018,094,638 Hindus live in India 79% of India's population

and according to wickipedia 2010 estimation there are 1,080,000,000 hindus world wide

Hindus in europe equal a mere......0.214%
Hindus in the Americas.simarly......0.263%
Hindus in Asia ..............................................99.266%
in Africa...........................................0.213%
in Oceana ........................................0.06%


this 80% of western Hindus that you site even if these are the
all non Asian situated Hindus these only amount to 0.768%of all Hindus , .....so to say that 80% of this very small percentage is inconsequential

and if you say that 85% of Indians think that it is possible to beleive in Darwins theory and their own Gods symultaniously how much of this is a willingness towards acceptance of modern materialistic values , ...you may also ask how many Indian Hindus truely understand the vedic sciences ? after all the large majority of Hindus allways have accept the knowledge of their preistly classes without question .

I quoted a series of polls with links. One is from India and the other from US. They provide the best (so far) evidence of what Hindu-s currently believe, both in India and in US. I understand that, as a member of ISKCON (this is correct right), you read scriptures in a way that makes you reject evolution...but ISKCON represents only a small fraction of Hindu-s and very few other Hindu schools reject evolution as far as I know. If you have any evidence to the contrary link them. And do not quote early 20th century material, when Darwinian version of evolutionary theory was not accepted by most scientists due to lack of evidence, but what modern schools of Hinduism has said on this matter in the last 20-30 years.

Now, if you consider "true" Hindu-s ought not to believe in the scientific theory of evolution, we can have this debate/discussion in the same-faith debates thread where I specifically have a thread on this. Once again we are going to clash over the weight-age of the "pramana-s" . Nyaya-Vaisesika, Advaita Vedanta and many other schools maintain that

1) Sabda-pramana (or testimony) can be accepted from experts whoever they may be and in whatever profession. This includes experts not only in transcendental knowledge (rishi-s of Veda-s) but also in mundane knowledge (experts in medicine, architecture, math, science, linguistics) etc. Thus testimony of experts in science is sabda pramana for their fields and is treated as such. One can disregard their speculations in the fields of theology or philosophy though because they are not experts in these.

2) If evidence from direct observation and inference based in these are available, Sabda-pramana can be over-ruled by these more direct means of knowledge. This is specifically applicable to the mundane world of the senses (i.e. the physical world) of course.

3) Finally I would point out that evidence and reason based traditions of Indian Hinduism were flourishing right upto the early 17th century when it received a fatal blow because British colonial policy was to discourage traditional modes of rational thinking and to make the country fully dependent on Western models of rational education. They allowed more esoterically oriented and faith-based schools to persist, as they did not pose any threat to the progressive de-industrialization of India to make the country's economy a dependent one. This has created, in the 19th-20th century the misleading impression that Hinduism is only about the spiritual world, which is ahistorical. Thus if Indians today take seriously the sciences, arts and economics again and give them equal weight-age to the transcendental realms of growth, it is a return of the basic values and trends that has characterized the civilization since the beginning.
The Lost Age of Reason
http://ddceutkal.ac.in/Syllabus/MA_history/paper_23.pdf\

 

[james bond]

Correct.

So, being a YEC, this is my objection using Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Hinduism and Hongwanji Buddhism (My gf's church. She is Japanese). First, I find the Buddah, Dharma and Sangha to be a path to enlightenment. I think this Sangha was founded on the teachings of Shinran Shonin who learned from Amitabha. I'm not sure what school of Hindu teachings this equates to. I think their teachings leads one to be on the path to God in Christian terms of that being a straight line to the heavens (such as vertical line of the cross that is perpendicular to the horizontal line). This is the only teaching that I can equate with science that I've learned so far. One has to be sure to be on the vertical line 90 degrees from the horizontal line to be correct in science. Far too many times, we can err by one degree and end up on the wrong direction. I think it's more a moral and state of mind teaching, but it serves science well in my opinion.

 

[sayak83]

What Hinduism has to say about the creation of the universe? Does it say like the science says? Big bang theory and all...or was it just that the creator God of yours just created it...was there any specific definition or clues? I'm sorry idk much about Hinduism as much as Islam or Christianity! hope I didn't sound rude or weird... Just curious,thank you!

As others have pointed out, the narrative of origins are diverse among the various Indic religious and philosophical schools.

The earliest Hindu scriptures (Rig Veda and the principal upanisads) consider the universe to be a staged emergence from a Unified One. The Spinoza-n idea of the universe (and all that exists) as the body of a Supreme Being also makes an appearance. A few selections:-

Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10:129)

The nonexsitent did not exist, nor did the existent exist at that time
There existed neither the airy space nor heaven beyond.
What moved back and forth?
From where and in whose protection?
Did water exist, a deep depth?

Death did not exist nor deathlessness then. Nor any sign of night or day.
That One breathed without wind by its independent will.
There existed nothing beyond that.

Darkness existed, hidden by darkness, in the beginning.
All this was a signless ocean.
What existed, as a thing coming-into-being concealed by emptiness - that One
Was born by the power of heat.

Then, in the beginning,
From thought there evolved desire,
Which existed as the primal seed (semen).
Searching in their hearts through inspired thought,
Seers found the connection of the existent with the nonexistent.

Their cord was stretched across:-
Did something exist below it? Did something exist above?
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
There was independent will below, and offering above.

Who really knows? Who shall here proclaim it? - from where was it born,
From where this creation?
The gods are on this side of the creation, so then who does know from where it came to be?

This creation - from where it came to be, if it was produced or if not....
He who is the overseer of this world in the furthest heaven,
He surely knows;
Or if He does not know...?


There are others, but I will let you chew on that for a bit.

 

[sayak83]

So, being a YEC, this is my objection using Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Hinduism and Hongwanji Buddhism (My gf's church. She is Japanese). First, I find the Buddah, Dharma and Sangha to be a path to enlightenment. I think this Sangha was founded on the teachings of Shinran Shonin who learned from Amitabha. I'm not sure what school of Hindu teachings this equates to. I think their teachings leads one to be on the path to God in Christian terms of that being a straight line to the heavens (such as vertical line of the cross that is perpendicular to the horizontal line). This is the only teaching that I can equate with science that I've learned so far. One has to be sure to be on the vertical line 90 degrees from the horizontal line to be correct in science. Far too many times, we can err by one degree and end up on the wrong direction. I think it's more a moral and state of mind teaching, but it serves science well in my opinion.

What was the objection again?

 

[Riders]

I've read part of the Bhagavad Gita I love it. I consider Hinduism a part of my Zen meditation practice .Sometimes I go to a Hindu Yoga meditation class on my second life virtual reality game.

However I have had quams about the Hare Krishna Temple. I know they have a reputation for being a cult in the 70s. I have been to kalachandjis in dallas on several occasions, a Hari Krishna Temple that is also a vegetarian restaurant.

I went to the service, and danced and chanted and the music was great and they brought out the flowers and rituals to the Gods and Godesses, Kirtan! It was beautiful I loved it.

I'm not sold on the idea that they are a cult. But being strict is different then being a cult. If I thought I could go once a month maybe and still go to my UU church and Zen meditation maybe Id visit once a month.

I just get the impression from the teachers that taught class that they really want you to sell out to Hari Krishna 100 percent but perhaps I misunderstood.

I don't know. ANyone who wants to respond give me your interpretation of Hari Krishna?

 

[SomeRandom]

Namaskaram Sayak ji



where do you get these figures from ?

you site that 80% of western Hindus beleive in Darwins theory of evolution , ...is this just because they have had received a secular education ? therfore beleif in Darwinism , in a high percentage of these Hindu will be purely indoctrination

when you considder that acording to 2015 cencus 1,018,094,638 Hindus live in India 79% of India's population

and according to wickipedia 2010 estimation there are 1,080,000,000 hindus world wide

Hindus in europe equal a mere......0.214%
Hindus in the Americas.simarly......0.263%
Hindus in Asia ..............................................99.266%
in Africa...........................................0.213%
in Oceana ........................................0.06%


this 80% of western Hindus that you site even if these are the
all non Asian situated Hindus these only amount to 0.768%of all Hindus , .....so to say that 80% of this very small percentage is inconsequential

and if you say that 85% of Indians think that it is possible to beleive in Darwins theory and their own Gods symultaniously how much of this is a willingness towards acceptance of modern materialistic values , ...you may also ask how many Indian Hindus truely understand the vedic sciences ? after all the large majority of Hindus allways have accept the knowledge of their preistly classes without question .

Indoctrination, Ratikalaji?
You mean High School Biology class? Does that mean Newton's Laws of Physics also qualifies as indoctrination? Einstein's theory of relativity? The Germ Theory? DNA? Chemistry? Palaeontology? Archeology/History? Marine Biology? Geology? How about we just include all the STEM fields and be done with it? (Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology.) Or does "indoctrination" only apply to the Theory of Evolution? Which therefore applies to all modern medical fields since that is basically the foundation for all of those disciplines?

The Theory of Evolution does not make one materialistic nor does it discourage it. It's a part of science, not a philosophical argument. Just because Western Hindus accept it (or not) doesn't mean they're prone to a more materialistic pathway. It may be a side affect of Indian parents pushing kids to be successful Doctors, if not successful in at least one STEM field. And yes I know that is stereotypical, but it's still true!
Oh and "secular education" just means religiously neutral. And not exactly exclusive to the West. As I understand it, Fiji public education is largely secular. So I don't know what that has to do with "indoctrination."
Secularism and religion aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've read part of the Bhagavad Gita I love it. I consider Hinduism a part of my Zen meditation practice .Sometimes I go to a Hindu Yoga meditation class on my second life virtual reality game.

However I have had quams about the Hare Krishna Temple. I know they have a reputation for being a cult in the 70s. I have been to kalachandjis in dallas on several occasions, a Hari Krishna Temple that is also a vegetarian restaurant.

I went to the service, and danced and chanted and the music was great and they brought out the flowers and rituals to the Gods and Godesses, Kirtan! It was beautiful I loved it.

I'm not sold on the idea that they are a cult. But being strict is different then being a cult. If I thought I could go once a month maybe and still go to my UU church and Zen meditation maybe Id visit once a month.

I just get the impression from the teachers that taught class that they really want you to sell out to Hari Krishna 100 percent but perhaps I misunderstood.

I don't know. ANyone who wants to respond give me your interpretation of Hari Krishna?

The Hare Krishna movement is a..... Precarious topic in Hinduism in general. While most will respect the practitioners since they are very sincere in their worship of God and are generally free to worship however and whomever they please, there's still a little bit of uncertainty about them among some Hindus. It's a lot like the Jain movement where whilst there is a lot of respect, it's often seen as rather....extreme.
There is a view that they are rather cult like. I mean again not many Hindus will object to them as they usually just do their own thing and that's okay, but there is still a wary sidelong glance given to them from time to time. I know many Hare Krishnas. Very nice people. Many of them are family, but yeah there is a bit of a cultish vibe to them. Oddly moreso in the Western Hare Krishnas, not so much the Easterners. I don't know why. Western eagerness to prove themselves maybe. But ehh, they're cool. A little strict for my tastes, but then so are most schools of Hinduism (to me anyway.)

 

[Riders]

Yea they were nice. But the teacher whom had asked he didn't he see me there before was teaching and telling us its important to show up every week more then once a week if possible to go to Kirtan. I felt like he was talking to me there was a definite sense of them being pretty sold out so.

Theres a Zen Temple at Dallas Meditation center that has a service once a week with Zen sitting the Hindu Kirtan service then a Dharma class in one night Sunday nights .It lasts like 2 hours I think. At some point this year I have a goal of getting down there to be in that service.

Namaste

Hare Krishna

 

[SomeRandom]

Yea they were nice. But the teacher whom had asked he didn't he see me there before was teaching and telling us its important to show up every week more then once a week if possible to go to Kirtan. I felt like he was talking to me there was a definite sense of them being pretty sold out so.

Theres a Zen Temple at Dallas Meditation center that has a service once a week with Zen sitting the Hindu Kirtan service then a Dharma class in one night Sunday nights .It lasts like 2 hours I think. At some point this year I have a goal of getting down there to be in that service.

Namaste

Hare Krishna

Attendance is often stressed in some places of Hare Krishna groups. I assume because Hare Krishnas are very very very committed to their services to God.
This stands in contrast to other Hindu services where people just wander into services as they please and everyone seems to consider it rude to note someone else's attendance or lack there of. But everyone has their quirks I suppose.

 

[Pops]

As others have pointed out, the narrative of origins are diverse among the various Indic religious and philosophical schools.

The earliest Hindu scriptures (Rig Veda and the principal upanisads) consider the universe to be a staged emergence from a Unified One. The Spinoza-n idea of the universe (and all that exists) as the body of a Supreme Being also makes an appearance. A few selections:-

Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10:129)

The nonexsitent did not exist, nor did the existent exist at that time
There existed neither the airy space nor heaven beyond.
What moved back and forth?
From where and in whose protection?
Did water exist, a deep depth?

Death did not exist nor deathlessness then. Nor any sign of night or day.
That One breathed without wind by its independent will.
There existed nothing beyond that.

Darkness existed, hidden by darkness, in the beginning.
All this was a signless ocean.
What existed, as a thing coming-into-being concealed by emptiness - that One
Was born by the power of heat.

Then, in the beginning,
From thought there evolved desire,
Which existed as the primal seed (semen).
Searching in their hearts through inspired thought,
Seers found the connection of the existent with the nonexistent.

Their cord was stretched across:-
Did something exist below it? Did something exist above?
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
There was independent will below, and offering above.

Who really knows? Who shall here proclaim it? - from where was it born,
From where this creation?
The gods are on this side of the creation, so then who does know from where it came to be?

This creation - from where it came to be, if it was produced or if not....
He who is the overseer of this world in the furthest heaven,
He surely knows;
Or if He does not know...?


There are others, but I will let you chew on that for a bit.

Thank you ^-^ this one was easier...