The appropriation of non-Dharmic figures into Hinduism?

[Breathe]

Thats your opinion. And opinions arent exactly reliable information, are they?

Not always, but this has been the general response I've encountered and was taught.

 

[Jainarayan]

Not in Hinduism.

But how can one explain the different schools: Advaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Visishthadvaita, Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta... ? Surely not all of these could have been revealed to the acharyas, especially when some of them are diametrically opposed.

Edit: I just saw the preceding posts on this, but I maintain that in these cases, interpretations are opinions.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

It doesnt really help an enquiring outsider with being informed by Hinduism if he is not presented with the actual teachings of the religion and instead be given people's own flawed understanding and personal take of things. That's actually leading people astray rather than offer an overview. I think Hindus need to take this matter very seriously. Its technically a spiritual crime because it becomes a matter of leading someone to disappointment, misunderstanding or make them believe what isnt true and follow what has no authority.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Scripture is a part of Hinduism, I agree, but it doesn't represent, contain, or cover the various ideologies and teachings that the term "Hinduism" encompasses.

I spoke from my personal experience as a Tamil Hindu. Its not a perspective that many foreigners interested in Hinduism are familiar with. And I think its pretty clear to everyone that Hinduism varies greatly between regions, ethnic groups, and castes.

Back to the original question, yes there is a difference between non-dharmic Indian gods versus non-dharmic foreign gods, I wish I had clarified that more earlier.

On a side note, it's a little inaccurate for this forum to categorize Hinduism as a purely a Dharmic Religion, when it is both Dharmic and an Indigenous religion.

 

[atanu]

Thats your opinion. And opinions arent exactly reliable information, are they?

Namste Guptaji

Why do you think it is a personal opinion? Do you mean to say that sanatana dharma and vaidic dharma are two different things?

 

[atanu]

But how can one explain the different schools: Advaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Visishthadvaita, Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta... ? Surely not all of these could have been revealed to the acharyas, especially when some of them are diametrically opposed.

Edit: I just saw the preceding posts on this, but I maintain that in these cases, interpretations are opinions.

Advaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Visishthadvaita, Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta... All these schools can show evidence from Veda that their perspective is true. That is the nature of Veda.

It may appear weird to some. But it is about layered knowledge/teaching. One who is a firm believer of the 'body' as 'me' has to have different method and philosophy compared to another seeker who sees Shiva alone everywhere and at all times. Hinduism is totally built on Guru Parampara-s, which suit the needs of different experience levels of seekers.

One can show from Veda verses that suggest advaita or dvaita or anything in between. It is not that there is no opinion but a seeker is basically his opnions only and he/she will need medicine as per his opinion to relinquish those opinions.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think we're on the same page. I wasn't clear by giving the impression that one or the other has to be true, and the others false. I can understand that all of those are within the Vedas. Maybe "opinions" isn't the right word we're all using. Maybe it's "vision" and "interpretation"... everyone having their "vision" of what they take away from the Vedas and the what the rishis perceived. I'm no theologian, but going back to the post "Not in Hinduism", the beauty is that Hinduism has room for all these "visions", "interpretations", "opinions".

 

[atanu]

I think we're on the same page. I wasn't clear by giving the impression that one or the other has to be true, and the others false. I can understand that all of those are within the Vedas. Maybe "opinions" isn't the right word we're all using. Maybe it's "vision" and "interpretation"... everyone having their "vision" of what they take away from the Vedas and the what the rishis perceived. I'm no theologian, but going back to the post "Not in Hinduism", the beauty is that Hinduism has room for all these "visions", "interpretations", "opinions".

Instead of opinion or vision i will use a phrase i like immensely. It is from Yoga Vasista and it means: Whatever is there in consciousness is true since consciousness is true.

If my consciousness has some pictures, then those are phenomenally true for me. My path and my ishta devata should satisfy those pictures, at least initially. Then it is Guru's job to steer the course.

That is how i see it. Personal opinion again.

 

[Jainarayan]

It makes sense, and I just thought of something. We see only a cross-section, or bits and pieces of "reality". Use achintya bhedabheda as an example. As the name says, it's inconceivable. We just can't conceive of all these "different" thoughts, opinions, interpretations as probably being just one. We can't see it all.

 

[SageTree]

Dang... I'm glad I asked about the particular meanings of āstika and nāstika as it seems to have gotten some very good conversation going on.


I think you all Brothers and Sisters for the information/facts/opinions/experience sharing.

:namaste

 

[Akhilesh]

Jain sikh buddhist are part of hinduism.they all worship hindu gods and hindu worship buddha as a avtar of vishnu .he was a hindu prince he never deny oppose veda.reincarnation and karma all principle are related in buddhism taken from upanishad.

 

[Akhilesh]

Jain sikh buddhist are part of hinduism.they all worship hindu gods and hindu worship buddha as a avtar of vishnu .he was a hindu prince he never deny oppose veda.reincarnation and karma all principle are related in buddhism taken from upanishad.

 

[zenzero]

Friend GP,

The appropriation of non-Dharmic figures into Hinduism?

Kindly speak of SANATN DHARMA and dharma is laws of existence which every being is following either consciously or unconsciously and so ever being is dharmic.
Adharmic is when one is not in tune with the laws of existence where the MIND takes precedence over no-mind but then Karma is a great leveller and one finally follows the laws consciously.

So there are no non-dharmic figures regards to dharma that is eternal. At best many could be taking a detour to eventually follow dharma at some point.

Love & rgds

 

[Jainarayan]

The Buddha rejected the Vedas because they became mindlessly ritualistic.

 

[zenzero]

Friend TbtL,

The Buddha rejected the Vedas because they became mindlessly ritualistic.

Could you elaborate on this??

Love & rgds

 

[Jainarayan]

Buddhism and Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buddha, Vedas and the Brahmana culture

Even Sri Krishna in B.G. 2.42-43 says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this." I think He was paving the way for setting the Vedas aside as ritualistic manuals.

Buddhism and Its Vedic Connections

When Lord Buddha appeared, the people of India, although following the Vedas, had deviated from the primary goal of Vedic philosophy. They had become preoccupied with performing ceremonies and rituals for material enjoyment. Some of the rituals included animal sacrifices. The people had begun to sacrifice animals indiscriminately on the plea of Vedic rituals and then indulged in eating the flesh. Being misled by unworthy priests, much unnecessary animal killing was going on and the people were becoming more degraded and atheistic.

 

[zenzero]

Friend TbtL,
Kindly understand that:

The Buddha rejected the Vedas because they became mindlessly ritualistic.

is not the same as:

When Lord Buddha appeared, the people of India, although following the Vedas, had deviated from the primary goal of Vedic philosophy.

Firstly Shall use the label Gautama and not *Buddha* as Gautama was the person and *Buddha* is a state where *n* numbers reached.
Personal understanding is that Gautam did or cannot reject the vedas as his understanding evolved fom the same background. Evolution happens whenever a change is reuired for the better. Read and understand this:
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com
Gautama changed the course which though mostly disliked by ritual practicing people and the umbrella of Santan Dharma widened under Gautama.

Love & Rgds

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Read and understand this:
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com

Great stuff this should be it's own thread.

 

[Jainarayan]

I disagree that they are not the same, I believe they are, just from a different angle. At the time, the people were not following the Vedas as they should have been followed. It doesn't mean they are untrue and without merit. But why cling to something that is not being followed the way it should be?

Friend TbtL,
Kindly understand that:

is not the same as:

Firstly Shall use the label Gautama and not *Buddha* as Gautama was the person and *Buddha* is a state where *n* numbers reached.

Yes, I understand what Buddha means. But in deference to Buddhists' beliefs, I use that term.

 

[zenzero]

Friend TbtL,

At the time, the people were not following the Vedas as they should have been followed. It doesn't mean they are untrue and without merit. But why cling to something that is not being followed the way it should be?

who does this *they* refer? VEDAS? No they are pointers to THAT.
Those who followed it were not doing so in spirit and that was leading to degenration which Gautama pointed to and not reject the VEDAS. VEDAS cannot be rejected but surely expanded and Gautama did that. [personal understanding]
Love & rgds

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

ratikala;2636397]
the term hindu is name given historicaly by the persian's refering to the peoples living beyond the indus river (the sindu ), calling that land beyond hindustan and its people hindustani , regardless of their different religious practices .
many centurys later the english addopted the use of the term hindu covering the people of the country , only later when the people of india politicaly sought unification did they allso addopt the general term hindu .

thats what i have been taught as well.

my teacher was adamant that we use the correct name BHARATA VARSHA , the true sanskrit name for the indian sub continent . as in" mahabharata"

I agree with that.

he was allso insistant that we understand the correct meaning and usage of "sanatana dharma" , translating it as , 'sanatana : eternal' ..'dharma : religious principles'' , the 'law' by which we are bound !laws or rules of conduct laid down in the vedas .concequently I see no difference in buddhist dharma , in that it does not contradict sanatana dharma , therefore allthough buddha rejected the vedas as practiced in buddhas day , he did not contradict vedic principles .In fact buddha re established moral principals , sanatana dharma !

Well from what ive learned by reading the English Translations of Veda Samhita (not complete yet), I can understand why Buddha would have rejected the Vedas (as taught in his time).
What ive found is that Vedas actually do not talk of God that often.
It is more concerned with human life, political, social ect.
And if you translate it in the ways of Sayana and other Puranics then it does Talk of God alot. And if you translate as per Nirukta/Nigantu and Panini then there is vary little mention of God.
I don't think the Vedas talk about God at all, all depends on translations.