The appropriation of non-Dharmic figures into Hinduism?

[Gaura Priya]

So... what gives?

Abrahamics tend to Abrahamicise their concepts or even Dharmicise them for conversion practices.

However, in the opposite way, Hindus are also as guilty of adding such figures into the Hindu imagination.

What do you do when Guru Nanak's picture is given puja, and even made into a Deity form; or how both Christ and Muhammad, and even in villages where Baha'u'llah ('Bhagavan Baha') is introduced to the community, are worshipped as shaktyavesha avataras, or even just plain avataras of God, such as Lord Buddha?

Do Hindus necessarily need to be associated with such figures? Why is it so desirable for some Hindus to Dharmicise characters of other religions? To legitimise their religious inclinations?

Hare Krishna!

 

[Ardhanariswar]

People say its because Hindu's are so accepting of other religions. To be honest, I think it's similar to a "play it safe" mentality, to address as many deities, holy figures, prophets as possible. It can't hurt, right?

My school's Hindu Student Council's puja's included a portrait of Mahavira for the sake of our Jain populations. It looked a little out of place amongst the primarily Hindu gods and goddesses, but since Jainism is a little bit related to Hinduism, the disparity was negligible. If there were Hindu gods and Shinto gods mixed together, I might be a little concerned. I would be a lot more concerned if there was a portrait of Mohammed, especially since Islam forbids any sort of iconography.

Do Hindus need to be associated with such figures? It's a choice. I believe puja is a very personal activity. Though it takes place with other people, its your choice to decide who/where/what is the focus of your devotion. Don't let some idol get in your way.

 

[DeviChaaya]

I don't think we should be including figures from other religious traditions but I do not consider Jainism, Sikhism or Buddhism to be separate. They are merely different paths within the tradition, so I see no problem in including Mahavira in a puja or Guru Nanak, either. After all, many traditions involve guru puja.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism I consider to be separate, because as a whole they do not believe in the Vedas. So how can they be Hindu if they have no faith in the absolute nature of the Vedas?

What gets to me is how so easily we can make such non-Dharmic characters into part of the Hindu hierarchy of saints and gods. Have we no sense of discrimination that whoever is inspiring to us becomes a Hindu celebrity, despite any discrepancies in their teachings (that could apparently be harmonised according to time, place and circumstance)?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Maybe the Hindus that are doing this are panentheists. When I was a panentheist, I believed that all religions had some truth.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why is it so desirable for some Hindus to Dharmicise characters of other religions?

Hare Krishna!

I think some Hindus don't want to be portrayed or have others think of them as exclusivist. But my take is that its totally unnecessary. SD provides us with all we need and more than we can handle. Many of us can't even get past the first yama. In days of yore SD stood alone quite fine all by itself. Then the traders came ....

 

[ratikala]

to all vaisnavas lord buddha is regarded as ' dashavatara '

one of the ten incarnatrions of visnu , allong side rama and krsna , lord buddha appeared for the purpous of re establishing religious principles , therefore is a perfect exponent of sanatana dharma !:yes:

sanatana dharma ki jai :bow:

lord buddha ki jai :bow:

 

[Ardhanariswar]

to all vaisnavas lord buddha is regarded as ' dashavatara '

one of the ten incarnatrions of visnu , allong side rama and krsna , lord buddha appeared for the purpous of re establishing religious principles , therefore is a perfect exponent of sanatana dharma !:yes:

sanatana dharma ki jai :bow:

lord buddha ki jai :bow:

Well its debated. Some Hindus view Buddha as an avatar, others don't. Bottom line is that Buddha denied the authority of the Vedas. He rejected worship of the sacred fire (an element central to the Puja ritual), as well as Brahmanic rituals. In my opinion its an insult to his memory to place him amongst Vedic gods and perform a Vedic ritual in his honor.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well its debated. Some Hindus view Buddha as an avatar, others don't.

The idea that 'its debated' holds true for far more concepts than this one. Never underestimate the vastness of Sanatana Dharma. Could well be more there than in the rest of the faiths combined.

 

[Madhuri]

The Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism I consider to be separate, because as a whole they do not believe in the Vedas. So how can they be Hindu if they have no faith in the absolute nature of the Vedas?

What gets to me is how so easily we can make such non-Dharmic characters into part of the Hindu hierarchy of saints and gods. Have we no sense of discrimination that whoever is inspiring to us becomes a Hindu celebrity, despite any discrepancies in their teachings (that could apparently be harmonised according to time, place and circumstance)?

I don't think those religions vary greatly. Consider that there are sects of Hinduism that barely can be distinguished from Buddhism. The main aspects of Sikhism and Jainism can be found in certain Hindu sects also.

I think that it is not necessary for Hindus to worship the gurus of other lines, but it isn't a big deal either. Often, we see founders and saints of other religions to be empowered personalities, doing God's will. So there's no problem with it.

What could be a problem is elevating certain people to God-statuses, like Jesus. I'm neither here nor there in relation to Buddha. I grew up believing that Gautama and Vishnu Buddha were different personalities. According to many Gaudiya Vaishnavas, Vishnu Buddha existed prior to Gautama and that Gautama was a devotee of Vishnu Buddha. Whether this is true or not is beyond my knowledge.

 

[anisha_astrologer]

people play safe and exploit religion to harvest their selfish interests. buddha never said he is god but in hinduism he is represented as an avataar of vishnu. this was done to stop people from converting to buddhism, which was seen as a potential danger to hinduism. so it happens all the time, to retain monopoly of one's own religion, people diefy otyher religions as a sect of their own religion.

 

[Me Myself]

Maybe the Hindus that are doing this are panentheists. When I was a panentheist, I believed that all religions had some truth.

makes sense to me.

 

[Onkara]

There are two ways:

- Traditional

or

- Universal

 

[ratikala]

There are two ways:

- Traditional
or
- Universal

yas true , Conventional or Ultimate

 

[ratikala]

Bottom line is that Buddha denied the authority of the Vedas.

yes , for good reason .

when the vedas were inperfectly practiced , then they have no true authority

He rejected worship of the sacred fire (an element central to the Puja ritual), as well as Brahmanic rituals.

again with good reason .

In my opinion its an insult to his memory to place him amongst Vedic gods and perform a Vedic ritual in his honor.

but in my opinion , not !

perform the worship correctly , then it is no insult , true worship is never an insult :bow:

 

[anisha_astrologer]

yes , for good reason .

when the vedas were inperfectly practiced , then they have no true authority

again with good reason .

but in my opinion , not !

perform the worship correctly , then it is no insult , true worship is never an insult :bow:

if we worship Budhdha according to the Vedic rituals even if the pooja is performed correctly, we are somewhere ignoring his ideals. he rejected vedas and vedic teachings, then why place him in the vedic tradition among hindu gods?

 

[SageTree]

There are six āstika/orthodox schools of thought which accept the Vedas as authoritative,
And there are three nāstika/heterodox schools do not accept the Vedas as authoritative,
Within 'Hindu philosophy'......

Doesn't that make the nāstika still 'Hindu'/within the Sanatana Dharma?

 

[ratikala]

if we worship Budhdha according to the Vedic rituals even if the pooja is performed correctly, we are somewhere ignoring his ideals. he rejected vedas and vedic teachings, then why place him in the vedic tradition among hindu gods?

we must practice the correct , the prescribed rituals for the age , the yuga ,

buddha rejected the vedas (as they were taught and practiced in his day) because they had been corrupted , or become corrupt .

lord buddha is dashavatara , therefore he is ultimately visnu , to offer puja to lord buddha is to offer puja to visnu :yes:

give thanks , give reverance and pray for understanding

all will be revealed

 

[Ardhanariswar]

There are six āstika/orthodox schools of thought which accept the Vedas as authoritative,
And there are three nāstika/heterodox schools do not accept the Vedas as authoritative,
Within 'Hindu philosophy'......

Doesn't that make the nāstika still 'Hindu'/within the Sanatana Dharma?

Hindu encompasses a whole lot of beliefs and practices, from the more ancient indigenous pre-vedic ones to the Brahmanical vedic ones. So yes Nastika is still Hindu, because some Hindus (like myself) practice a more ancient pre-vedic Hinduism and reject aspects of vedic Hinduism.

But certain "Nastika" elements have no place in an "Astika" environment, namely a Vedic Puja. Just because Hinduism likes to include Buddhism and Jainism as part of their own, doesn't mean the Vedas include them as well. These are two separate things.

I hope this makes sense!

 

[anisha_astrologer]

we must practice the correct , the prescribed rituals for the age , the yuga ,

buddha rejected the vedas (as they were taught and practiced in his day) because they had been corrupted , or become corrupt .

lord buddha is dashavatara , therefore he is ultimately visnu , to offer puja to lord buddha is to offer puja to visnu :yes:

give thanks , give reverance and pray for understanding

all will be revealed

if buddha is an incarnation of vishnu then why unlike krishna who taught gita, buddha rejected the teachings of vedas. agreed that he rejected the form of vedas that was prevalent in his time but then why didn't he try to revive the real teachings of veda. also unlike the earlier incarnation of vishnu, ram and krishna who stayed in the world, faced the challenges of a human life buddha renounced worldly life. i feel that it was pure hindu politics to embed buddhism in hinduism to stop conversion of hindu followers. and if buddha was indeed a vishnu avtaar then all the countries in the world where buddhism is the main religion the people are actually hindus?