Why Hinduism

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka's personal deity is Kartikeya\Murugan, one of the sons of Shiva, the other being Ganesha. We don't see any problem in that.

Actually it's Shiva. I just find Ganesha easier to deal with or contact and Muruga inspiring in an austere sort of way so they are more 'go to'.

The CEO's secretary is easier to contact than the CEO himself.

 

[Terry Sampson]

There are many many many scriptures, often contradictory.

For the record, I could never invest the time and effort in "becoming a Hindu" because I know myself well enough to know that I couldn't/wouldn't derive sufficient pleasure from achieving familiarity with and comfort in the non-English vocabulary that I suspect I would need to have to continue to studying any, much less all, of the Hindu scriptures in the list that you have provided. That isn't a criticism of Hinduism, it's a recognition and acknowledgement of my own limits.

That said: I am still curious about "it", i.e. Hinduism.

• Because not all humans are born being Hindu, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
  • Or is there a portion of it that assumes that all humans begin life as Hindus, but not all realize that?
• If, as I suspect, Hinduism started somewhere,
  • where did it start?
  • when did it start? and
    
  • who, other than Brahaman, started it?

 

[Jainarayan]

in the past there was/were also non-theistic Hindu sect(s).

Still are.

I don't know much about it but have to wonder whether it parallels Buddhism, which is non-theistic (no creator-god).

Even the Rig Veda wonders Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, Charvak, Ajivakas, Buddhists, Jains, and perhaps others too (Buddha mentioned six 2,600 years ago - Samannaphala Sutta), all these were atheistic sects and philosophies of India or you may term them as opinions in Hinduism (Matas), parts of Hinduism, in the region where Buddha lived (mainly Bihar). Who knows what all were there in the whole of India? Buddhism and Jainism parted from Hinduism at a later date.

 

[Jainarayan]

For the record, I could never invest the time and effort in "becoming a Hindu" because I know myself well enough to know that I couldn't/wouldn't derive sufficient pleasure from achieving familiarity with and comfort in the non-English vocabulary that I suspect I would need to have to continue to studying any, much less all, of the Hindu scriptures in the list that you have provided. That isn't a criticism of Hinduism, it's a recognition and acknowledgement of my own limits.

The only reason you'd need non-English vocabulary or knowledge is for mantras, hymns, etc. that are in Sanskrit. Most people learn them by rote and don't even know what they mean. So why do it? Hinduism is very big on sound energy. It's the sound of the language and mantras that carries the message, not the literal meaning. But we're also fond of saying God and the gods are beyond language. I had a coworker who said his wife's Sanskrit was so bad she did their home puja in their native Gujarati.

That said: I am still curious about "it", i.e. Hinduism.

• Because not all humans are born being Hindu, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
  • Or is there a portion of it that assumes that all humans begin life as Hindus, but not all realize that?
• If, as I suspect, Hinduism started somewhere,
  • where did it start?
  • when did it start? and
    
  • who, other than Brahaman, started it?

It probably grew out of a pastoral and/or animist substrate. We do believe that everyone is Hindu because as the proper name, Sanātana Dharma, Eternal Way/Principle indicates, it's eternal and universal. Where did it start? There's evidence that a pre-Vedic religion was practiced in the Indus Valley as far back as 3300 BCE. There's no single founder of Hinduism. We have a number of rishis, i.e. sages that spent many years, centuries in deep meditation and perceived its knowledge. They did not hear a voice from the sky, or be handed a code book.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because not all humans are born being Hindu, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
Or is there a portion of it that assumes that all humans begin life as Hindus, but not all realize that?
If, as I suspect, Hinduism started somewhere,
where did it start?
when did it start? and
who, other than Brahaman, started it?

Terry Sampson (Can I call you Terry for brevity?), we do not distribute invitation cards to people to become Hindus. Those who have accepted Hinduism is because of their own choice.

Sure, all humans are not born Hindus. That is the Islamic line, and as I see Jai's line too. I do not subscribe to it. And Hinduism sure had to start somewhere, and that somewhere is India. It was not born in this city or that, in this region or that, started by this person or that. It is the sum total of all Indian beliefs in pre-history. As for the date, I can only make a guess, and my guess is around 5,000 years ago, as mentioned in my previous post (Reason - the mixing of Indus Valley civilization beliefs and those of Indo-Europeans from the steppes, Vedics, Indo-Aryans, who brought the Vedas and Sanskrit).

For me Brahman is not a God, not a being, not a person, it is the substrate of all existence in the universe, so Brahman was not involved in the establishment of Hinduism. Good night for now.

 

[firedragon]

It's actually contradictory. But Hindus rarely see that as a problem, because one very common facet to us is tolerance and acceptance of the right to other views ... differing views, as we have no psychological need for right and wrong.

Thats great.

So the dualistic Vaishnava who claims Krishna is Godhead has no problem with the monistic Shaiva who says Shiva is God.

In vishnuism also Rig Vedh is a primary scripture right? So does that mean Vishnu is the almighty, supreme God and others are his avatars which means it goes back to a one being?

I understand what you say. So another thing like Shaivavada would worship Shiva the same way, but that again becomes another "one God" many avatars. Thus though one contradicts the other, they are on their own monotheistic or monistic. So thats why Hinduism cannot be pinpointed as such.

I kind of understand what you are saying i think.

So the same book like Rig Vedh has evidence for both of these views? Rig Vedh as an example. Or do you take any other book as superior to that or supersedes?

 

[Vinayaka]

For the record, I could never invest the time and effort in "becoming a Hindu" because I know myself well enough to know that I couldn't/wouldn't derive sufficient pleasure from achieving familiarity with and comfort in the non-English vocabulary that I suspect I would need to have to continue to studying any, much less all, of the Hindu scriptures in the list that you have provided. That isn't a criticism of Hinduism, it's a recognition and acknowledgement of my own limits.

That said: I am still curious about "it", i.e. Hinduism.

• Because not all humans are born being Hindu, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
  • Or is there a portion of it that assumes that all humans begin life as Hindus, but not all realize that?
• If, as I suspect, Hinduism started somewhere,
  • where did it start?
  • when did it start? and
    
  • who, other than Brahaman, started it?

When my friends and I started getting into yoga and my Guru's teachings about 45 years ago, a strong Catholic friend recognised that continuing with it would create conflict with her own subconscious mind so discontinued. She's a wonderful person, and remains friends to this day. Everyone else in our little group became Hindu. Most of us were 'nothings'.

I don't speak Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil, or any other Indian language. I do chant Sanskrit for the sound, but I only really know English. Lots of stuff is in English.

As for the start, most Hindus believe that all knowledge is within, so it could have stated within any of many ancient sages who quieted the mind, and went within. That's sill the process for getting true knowledge, and has nothing to do with books or scripture. We have no idea when, but suffice it to say it was before written language.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thats great.



In vishnuism also Rig Vedh is a primary scripture right? So does that mean Vishnu is the almighty, supreme God and others are his avatars which means it goes back to a one being?

I understand what you say. So another thing like Shaivavada would worship Shiva the same way, but that again becomes another "one God" many avatars. Thus though one contradicts the other, they are on their own monotheistic or monistic. So thats why Hinduism cannot be pinpointed as such.

I kind of understand what you are saying i think.

So the same book like Rig Vedh has evidence for both of these views? Rig Vedh as an example. Or do you take any other book as superior to that or supersedes?

I have no idea. I'm not a scripture study kind of guy. As another person alluded to you are projecting your methods of study on to us.

 

[George-ananda]

I would be honoured to hear some of your thoughts.

I am a white American that follows Advaita (pantheistic) philosophy so I guess that makes me Hinduish.

I think why it is so great to me is that I believe its ancient rishis/sages reached mankind's deepest penetration into the nature of reality. Nothing in Abrahamic traditions or empirical science has reached this depth of understanding.

 

[Vinayaka]

The only reason you'd need non-English vocabulary or knowledge is for mantras, hymns, etc. that are in Sanskrit. Most people learn them by rote and don't even know what they mean. So why do it? Hinduism is very big on sound energy. It's the sound of the language and mantras that carries the message, not the literal meaning. But we're also fond of saying God and the gods are beyond language. I had a coworker who said his wife's Sanskrit was so bad she did their home puja in their native Gujarati.

Sanskrit is also transliterated into most , if not all the Indian languages. I was surprised recently when I caught a glance of a priest's handbook. It was in Tamil, but when he read it, it was definitely Sanskrit. So naturally I asked a few questions. Most Tamil priests can read either.

Not sure about whether or not Gujarati is Devanagiri script or not. Aup would know. My Guru's primary teachings have now been transliterated into Gujarati, from English. So it goes in all directions.

 

[Jainarayan]

In vishnuism also Rig Vedh is a primary scripture right? So does that mean Vishnu is the almighty, supreme God and others are his avatars which means it goes back to a one being?

1. Not really. People, especially newcomers to Hinduism put undue emphasis (in my opinion) on reading and studying the Vedas. The Vedas are not something to be read like a novel or how-to. Yes, there is philosophy and theology but the Rig Veda is largely hymns. It doesn't each you how to worship, or give descriptions of the gods and their doings. Most Hindus have probably never seen a copy of the Vedas. To qualify a bit, I consider Vishnu primus inter pares, first among equals.
2. Yes, pretty much. Except for "and others are his avatars". If you mean other gods like Shiva, Hanuman, Ganesha, Surya, Saraswati that's an ISKCON pov. ISKCON considers them "demi-gods". I do not like that or subscribe to it. While it's true in my beliefs that everything and everyone is Brahman, the other gods are individual beings in their own right... Brahman/God can do whatever it likes or needs to. It can exist as everything and everyone simultaneously. Trippy, huh? There is a list of 24 incarnations that are Vishnu's avatars, not just the 10 people think of.

So the same book like Rig Vedh has evidence for both of these views? Rig Vedh as an example. Or do you take any other book as superior to that or supersedes?

In my sect/tradition, the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana (aka Srimad Bhagavatam) are our go-to. I use some common mantras and verses from the Rig Veda, but that's pretty much it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sanskrit is also transliterated into most , if not all the Indian languages. I was surprised recently when I caught a glance of a priest's handbook. It was in Tamil, but when he read it, it was definitely Sanskrit. So naturally I asked a few questions. Most Tamil priests can read either.

Oh most definitely. Writing Sanskrit in Devanagari is a recent occurrence [edit to add: I found that on the Sanskrit subreddit, but it doesn't explain the images of ancient texts], I think the past 100-200 years. Before that the vernacular script was used. So yeah, you'll see Sanskrit written in Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, etc. scripts. Even Tibetan. You see me writing it in the Latin alphabet with diactritics, (IAST), which is also a perfectly valid method, I learned.

Not sure about whether or not Gujarati is Devanagiri script or not. Aup would know. My Guru's primary teachings have now been transliterated into Gujarati, from English. So it goes in all directions.

Gujarati has its own script. Most of the Indian languages do. I suppose in the same way Sanskrit can be written in the Latin alphabet or English can be written in Devanagari, Gujarati can be written in Devanagari.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hinduism is very big on sound energy. It's the sound of the language and mantras that carries the message, not the literal meaning.

By way of context for my subsequent comment: My biological parents were Deaf from infancy, at least, if not born deaf. Because both were married but not to each other, I add that my step-parents were also Deaf, ... likewise from infancy, at least, if not born deaf. And, of my parents by adoption, both were Hearing, except that my mother became deaf due to complete hearing loss at about the age of 16. I am and always have been hearing. American Sign Language was my first language but from my adoption became less important and now I don't travel among the deaf or the Deaf except by accident.

Comment: When a social group relies on sound for communication, entertainment, and/or inspiration as much as Hearing folks do, those in that group who are involuntarily deaf/Deaf are usually substantially marginalized. Consequently, IMO, Hinduism doesn't seem like it would be deaf/Deaf-friendly. Could/Would you agree?

[Note: "Capital D" Deaf commonly refers to the culturally Deaf. "Small d" deaf commonly refers to Hearing folks trapped in bodies that can't hear.]

I had a coworker who said his wife's Sanskrit was so bad she did their home puja in their native Gujarati.

Interesting.

(Can I call you Terry?)

Yes, ... unless and until you force me to put you on my "Ignore" list; If that happens, you can call me anything you want.

Those who have accepted Hinduism is because of their own choice.

Sounds sane to me.

For me Brahman is not a God, not a being, not a person, it is the substrate of all existence in the universe, so Brahman was not involved in the establishment of Hinduism.

That's what we carnivores would call "a meaty sentence", so I'll comment on it in another post.

 

[firedragon]

The avatar concept is uniquely Vaishnava. I personally don't like the word avatar, I prefer "form" or "appearance". Shiva and Devi also take different "forms", but in those traditions, they're not called avatars.

It's not monotheism because Krishna is not the only form of God I worship. Monotheism says there is one and only one God in one and only one form. I also pray to God in his Shiva form; in his/her Lakshmi form; in his/her Hanuman form, etc. depending on what I'm praying for or whom I'm worshiping. As humans we take different forms and appearances too, and can be approached in those forms or capacities.

Alright brother. I understand now why you make that distinction from Monotheism.

BTW, doesnt Avatara mean form or appearance exactly? So i dont understand why avatara is not used. If you could explain i would be grateful.

 

[firedragon]

When one is coming from the Abrahamic religions and then trying to understand the eastern religions, things tend to get very complicated and confusing, as found out myself decades ago.

Your above question has already been answered, but also let me just throw in the fact that in the past there was/were also non-theistic Hindu sect(s). I don't know much about it but have to wonder whether it parallels Buddhism, which is non-theistic (no creator-god).

Hmm. Non-theistic Hindus. Is it just like non-theistic Muslims? Yep. There are non-theistic muslims too.

 

[Jainarayan]

Hinduism doesn't seem like it would be deaf/Deaf-friendly. Could/Would you agree?

I honestly don't know how that would be addressed.

 

[firedragon]

The CEO's secretary is easier to contact than the CEO himself.

This same concept is present in Christianity and Islam. Muslims believe in Wali's who are dead figures who have the powers like a mini God and will answer your prayers. Just like a Christian saint but slightly different. And the existence is explained the same way you explained.

Its similar in explanation but not the same divinity.

 

[firedragon]

For the record, I could never invest the time and effort in "becoming a Hindu" because I know myself well enough to know that I couldn't/wouldn't derive sufficient pleasure from achieving familiarity with and comfort in the non-English vocabulary that I suspect I would need to have to continue to studying any, much less all, of the Hindu scriptures in the list that you have provided. That isn't a criticism of Hinduism, it's a recognition and acknowledgement of my own limits.

That said: I am still curious about "it", i.e. Hinduism.

• Because not all humans are born being Hindu, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
  • Or is there a portion of it that assumes that all humans begin life as Hindus, but not all realize that?
• If, as I suspect, Hinduism started somewhere,
  • where did it start?
  • when did it start? and
    
  • who, other than Brahaman, started it?

Leaving studying aside, you will be able to read the New Testament in a few days. I cant even imagine how long it would take to read through "Hindu Scripture".

 

[Jainarayan]

BTW, doesnt Avatara mean form or appearance exactly? So i dont understand why avatara is not used. If you could explain i would be grateful.

It actually means "descent". It's not used anywhere in Vedic writings, only later in puranic writings. I don't know why other sects don't use it except that being only puranic may give a clue. The other Hindu sects don't place as much, if any, importance on puranic literature as Vaishnavism does. So maybe that's why, as I said, it's a uniquely Vaishnava concept or use.