Three Essential Of Hinduism

[Mukesh Sharma]

Hii,
The Three Essential Of Hinduism Are Belief In God, In The Vedas As Revelation, In The Doctrine Of Karma And Transmigration.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Trying to tie-down Hinduism?

 

[atanu]

Hii,
The Three Essential Of Hinduism Are Belief In God, In The Vedas As Revelation, In The Doctrine Of Karma And Transmigration.

And purushArtha?

 

[Valjean]

Why is belief in God essential? What kind of God are we talking about?

 

[Thinking Homer]

Hii,
The Three Essential Of Hinduism Are Belief In God, In The Vedas As Revelation, In The Doctrine Of Karma And Transmigration.

You can be an atheist and still be a Hindu. All religions believe that their Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired so in my opinion it doesn't really count as a doctrine.

So only two doctrines need to be accepted:
1) Law of karma
2) Reincarnation and transmigration

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can be an atheist and still be a Hindu. All religions believe that their Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired so in my opinion it doesn't really count as a doctrine.

So only two doctrines need to be accepted:
1) Law of karma
2) Reincarnation and transmigration

Fail (Very good naturedly ). If I am an atheist, do not believe in existence of God and soul, then I would not believe in reincarnation and transmigration also - superstition. As for law of karma, I would believe in it for this life but not over reincarnations because I do not believe in them.

Scriptures are not the only source of Hinduism, common-sense also is. There is no bar to not believing in what is written in the scriptures if one can defend his/her position well. The only necessary requirement of being a Hindu is action according to one's 'Dharma' (fulfilling one's duties and engaging in righteous action). That is the least common factor (LCF) of Hinduism.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Fail (Very good naturedly ). If I am an atheist, do not believe in existence of God and soul, then I would not believe in reincarnation and transmigration also - superstition. As for law of karma, I would believe in it for this life but not over reincarnations because I do not believe in them.

Have you heard of the 6 darshanas (orthodox schools) of Hinduism? One of them is the Samkhya Darshana. It is a strictly atheistic belief system stating that reality consists of purusha (the eternal spirit) and prakriti (matter). In the samkhya philosophy, ignorance (avidya) is thought to be the cause of suffering and samsara (bondage). Purusa identifies itself with products of Prakriti such as buddhi (intellect) and ahamkara (ego), due to this ignorance.

Thus the school teaches that moksha is attained when one realizes that Purusha is distinct from Prakriti. This discriminatory knowledge is called 'viveka'. Once a person obtains this knowledge, the self is no longer subject to transmigration and absolute freedom arises. Meditation and other yogic practices are encouraged to develop one's higher faculties of discrimination. Note that they do believe in Brahman (as do all Hindus), but they don't see it as a God-like entity (as do a lot of Hindus).

Buddhism can also be called an atheistic religion (though this varies according to denomination), and yet they still believe in reincarnation (though it's slightly different from Hinduism)

Scriptures are not the only source of Hinduism, common-sense also is.

I know that Hindus believe that knowledge is not merely something to be memorized, but also experienced. However doctrines by definition are derived from the religious text, not from someone's own imagination.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have you heard of the 6 darshanas (orthodox schools) of Hinduism? One of them is the Samkhya Darshana. It is a strictly atheistic belief system stating that reality consists of purusha (the eternal spirit) and prakriti (matter). In the samkhya philosophy, ignorance (avidya) is thought to be the cause of suffering and samsara (bondage). Purusa identifies itself with products of Prakriti such as buddhi (intellect) and ahamkara (ego), due to this ignorance.

Thus the school teaches that moksha is attained when one realizes that Purusha is distinct from Prakriti. This discriminatory knowledge is called 'viveka'. Once a person obtains this knowledge, the self is no longer subject to transmigration and absolute freedom arises. Meditation and other yogic practices are encouraged to develop one's higher faculties of discrimination. Note that they do believe in Brahman (as do all Hindus), but they don't see it as a God-like entity (as do a lot of Hindus).

Buddhism can also be called an atheistic religion (though this varies according to denomination), and yet they still believe in reincarnation (though it's slightly different from Hinduism)

I know that Hindus believe that knowledge is not merely something to be memorized, but also experienced. However doctrines by definition are derived from the religious text, not from someone's own imagination.

Thinking Homer, I have heard of Samkhya and I do not believe in Samkhya. I do not believe in existence of two things, Purusha and Prakriti. I am an advaitist (non-duality) and we are one item people - i.e., Brahman only and nothing other than Brahman. I agree, some Hindus take Brahman to be a God, but I do not take it that way. For me Brahman is the substrate which constitutes all things in the universe.

I have understood Brahman and therefore, as the scriptures said - Mandukya Upanishad: "Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman). I have realized that I am Brahman. And being Brahman, I do not need Moksha, I am ever liberated. That is what Sankaracharya said:

na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau, mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ;
na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ,cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham.
I have no hatred or dislike, nor affiliation or liking, I have no pride nor feelings of envy; I have no duty (dharma), nor money, nor desire (kāma), nor liberation (mokṣa). I am that form of eternal bliss (known as) Shiva, I am indeed, Shiva.

Modern Buddhist differ from Buddha's view in many ways. The whole of Mahayana is something that Buddha never taught. It is not a condition for Hindus to follow the scriptures all the time. No two scriptures are the same, which means one or the other is at fault. Hinduism gives full freedom to have personal views, if a person so wishes after thorough study.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Have you heard of the 6 darshanas (orthodox schools) of Hinduism? One of them is the Samkhya Darshana.

Sankhya is a philosophy: to describe it as a school of Hinduism is like describing Thomism as a school of Christianity. Also, as far as I know, there haven't been any philosophers practicing it for the last thousand years. Finally, is it not a little cheeky for a Christian to take that tone towards a Hindu living in India?

 

[Aupmanyav]

David, a whole lot of people believe in the two fold creative principles, Purusha and Prakriti. BhagawdGita is supposed to be a Samkhya treatise. It is not that Samkhya has disappeared from Hinduism, but there have not been any recent developments.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Finally, is it not a little cheeky for a Christian to take that tone towards a Hindu living in India?

And a person like Aupmanyav, who thinks about Hinduism day-in and day-out; sleeping or waking.
Good Night, Friends.

 

[Valjean]

From an advaitic perspective the material world is a dream; created in the mind of the dreamer. Real reality is a homogenous field of potential, collapsed into various forms by the act of observation.

Like anything else -- planets, horses or computers -- Gods may be created in the mind of the observer.

The goal of a Hindu is to wake up and realise his unity unity with Undifferentiated Reality, in which state all forms, including Gods, will have been transcended.

Like horses or computers, Gods can be useful tools but, like horses, when one reaches one's destination, he dismounts and leaves the horse behind.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Sankhya is a philosophy: to describe it as a school of Hinduism is like describing Thomism as a school of Christianity. Also, as far as I know, there haven't been any philosophers practicing it for the last thousand years. Finally, is it not a little cheeky for a Christian to take that tone towards a Hindu living in India?

Let's not get emotional here and have a proper conversation. The OP stated that there are 3 doctrines that are essential for any Hindu to believe: belief in God, authority of the Vedas, and karma and reincarnation.

I agree with most of what Aupmanyav wrote by the way, and seeing as the Gita is the most popular text amongst Hindus, I understand why he would say that believing in God is essential.

The question is what defines a Hindu and what doesn't define a Hindu? Like Aupmanyav mentioned, Hinduism is a very tolerant religion and people are free to adopt the views they want. So if a person adopts the Samkhya philosophy and decides it's the truth for them, who is to say that they are wrong? If after years of rigorous studying of the scriptures, the concept of dualism makes sense to them, is that a wrong doctrine?

I think the nature in which Hindus and Christians interpret scriptures are different as well. Hindus are free to interpret scriptures as it is revealed to them, but Christianity is very adamant about sticking to the mainstream doctrines, and do not give us the freedom of interpreting the nature of God or the path to salvation/liberation for ourselves. (Note: this does not mean that we are not free to challenge the doctrines that are taught to us).

Of course every religion has clear boundaries of what beliefs are acceptable and which are not. For example it is clear that Buddhism and Jainism lie outside the boundary of a complex set of beliefs we call Hinduism. The question is does a person which adopt the Samkhya philosophy lie outside of this boundary or inside? Is the belief of God essential for a Hindu?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Hii,
The Three Essential Of Hinduism Are Belief In God, In The Vedas As Revelation, In The Doctrine Of Karma And Transmigration.

Namaste,

I would say the three essentials of Hinduism are:

1) Dharmah
2) Satya
3) Ahimsa

The 3 common truth claims of Hinduism would be:

1) Atman
2) Brahman
3) Reincarnation

These combined would constitute a definition of a Hindu IMO, All other Hindu practices, texts, Philosophies are dependant on these 6 items (so to speak) for their validity.

Hindus may debate the interpretation of truth claims and the correct application and practice of the essentials, and Hindus can reject all three of the truth claims But (IMHO) No Hindu can reject even one of the 3 essentials.

Rejecting the essentials in my view would constitute a rejection of Hinduism as a whole.

Dhanyavad

 

[sayak83]

Let's not get emotional here and have a proper conversation. The OP stated that there are 3 doctrines that are essential for any Hindu to believe: belief in God, authority of the Vedas, and karma and reincarnation.

I agree with most of what Aupmanyav wrote by the way, and seeing as the Gita is the most popular text amongst Hindus, I understand why he would say that believing in God is essential.

The question is what defines a Hindu and what doesn't define a Hindu? Like Aupmanyav mentioned, Hinduism is a very tolerant religion and people are free to adopt the views they want. So if a person adopts the Samkhya philosophy and decides it's the truth for them, who is to say that they are wrong? If after years of rigorous studying of the scriptures, the concept of dualism makes sense to them, is that a wrong doctrine?

I think the nature in which Hindus and Christians interpret scriptures are different as well. Hindus are free to interpret scriptures as it is revealed to them, but Christianity is very adamant about sticking to the mainstream doctrines, and do not give us the freedom of interpreting the nature of God or the path to salvation/liberation for ourselves. (Note: this does not mean that we are not free to challenge the doctrines that are taught to us).

Of course every religion has clear boundaries of what beliefs are acceptable and which are not. For example it is clear that Buddhism and Jainism lie outside the boundary of a complex set of beliefs we call Hinduism. The question is does a person which adopt the Samkhya philosophy lie outside of this boundary or inside? Is the belief of God essential for a Hindu?

Anyone who believes in Samkhya is a Hindu. No problem.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think the nature in which Hindus and Christians interpret scriptures are different as well.

Not just interpret, but also in how important they are to the grand scheme. Hindus generally put far less importance on scripture than Christians do, to the extent than most Hindus haven't read much scripture at all. Temple worship, dharma (with family first) and listening to the wise are all religious aspects of life Hindus put a ton of time into.