Why Hinduism

[firedragon]

Yes, that is exactly it.

In all seriousness, you shouldn't worry so much about whether scriptures are in harmony with others or even themselves. It just doesn't help.

Religion is far greater than any scriptures.

Specifically, the worth and meaning of any religious texts can only exist, let alone have worth, when they are enriched with the discernment and understanding of people with sincere intent and wisdom.

Brother. With all due respect, let others worry about what they need or not need to worry about. Sometimes people have a line of study that may seem not important or nothing worth 'worrying about'. People come to a forum called 'religiousforum' maybe to ask and return about 'religion'. If its not important to you, and you dont wish to contribute in any manner to a particular question or query with relevant insight, live and let live.

Peace.

 

[Marcion]

I think that for a Hindu rishi or for an enlightned guru, the idea that there is something such as Hinduism and that other paths are somehow outside of it is a nonsensical or meaningless idea.
If you want to become a Muslim you have to accept and repeat some prescribed dogma's and the same for becoming a Christian.
So the idea that there exist religions that are strictly seperated from each other is not an idea coming from Hinduism, it is a form of tribalism that originated in the Middle East.

 

[LuisDantas]

Brother. With all due respect, let others worry about what they need or not need to worry about.

Why would I commit such a clear mistake deliberately, brother?

I will not.

Sometimes people have a line of study that may seem not important or nothing worth 'worrying about'. People come to a forum called 'religiousforum' maybe to ask and return about 'religion'. If its not important to you, and you dont wish to contribute in any manner to a particular question or query with relevant insight, live and let live.

Peace.

You have a hard time understanding my view of religion. That is the only explanation for the unfair judgement that you show in this paragraph.

That is too bad. But I am persistent.

 

[firedragon]

I think that for a Hindu rishi or for an enlightned guru, the idea that there is something such as Hinduism and that other paths are somehow outside of it is a nonsensical or meaningless idea.
If you want to become a Muslim you have to accept and repeat some prescribed dogma's and the same for becoming a Christian.
So the idea that there exist religions that are strictly seperated from each other is not an idea coming from Hinduism, it is a form of tribalism that originated in the Middle East.

Well. If you go back in history to maybe the 7th century and told those people that you have to say this so called "Shahada" to become a Muslim they also might look at you and "how nonsensical".

Brother. This post was written in order to understand Hinduism, not to identify where and how some kind of tribalistic, islamic or otherwise separatist ideologies originated from.

I agree with you that if you speak to a Rishi he wont recognise what you mean by Hinduism. A lot of people have developed certain ritualistic statements or/and actions to make that "entrance" to their religion which indeed is a tribalistic assignment. And there is no evidence to say "it originated in the middle east", keeping aside the non-relevance of it. Even in Buddhism they have developed certain rituals to enter their so called "religion". Even in some Buddhist schools (Secular schools who call themselves buddhist schools) they make you recite the Theruwan Sarana Gatha when you enter the school. Its not scriptural. its social. Most tribalism are social. And anything that is not scriptural is probably latter development. Thats how it is. In ancient history there have been many rituals used as entrance assignments, rite of passage rituals, funeral rituals, etc etc. So first your assessment is absolutely wrong, and irrelevant.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Why would I commit such a clear mistake deliberately, brother?

I will not.


You have a hard time understanding my view of religion. That is the only explanation for the unfair judgement that you show in this paragraph.

That is too bad. But I am persistent.

Great. Thanks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can not prove there is no God or gods.
Vishnu is an essential aspect of the Supreme Being and a name for His Preserving Power. Your belief that He is fictional does not distract from Him being real. One again it is a belief that can not be proven or disproven.
Krishna was a real man who walked the earth. His historicity is accepted by many historians.
Most Hindus believe in an afterlife as Baha’is do.
As the table can not comprehend the reality of the carpenter that made it, so too are we unable to fathom the unfathomable.

That is no reason to accept the existence of Don Quixote de La Mancha or his servant, Sancho Panza.
Vishnu is another name for Brahman, but as I have already stated, Brahman is not a being, not a God. Vishnu is the sum total of all existence. That is why he took the Nrisimha avatar out of a stone pillar (as the story goes).
Name the historian.
Most Hindus like all other people, including Bahais, are ignorant and afraid of death. That is why they believe in 'other world' fairy tales.
Humans are not tables. They have gotten to know so many things. It is not the fault of science that you still want to remain in 7th Century talking of Allah and his prophets \ sons \ messengers \ manifestations \ mahdis, Adam being made from mud and Eve from his rib, and the flood covering the whole Earth including the top of Mount Everest. Absolutely silly.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think that for a Hindu rishi or for an enlightned guru, the idea that there is something such as Hinduism and that other paths are somehow outside of it is a nonsensical or meaningless idea.

And yet most will acknowledge that the system of thoughts and actions that got them to that enlightened state was indeed Hinduism. Sri Ramakrishna worshipped Shakti, Ramana Maharshi grew up entwined in Saivism, and founded his ashram right near one of the most powerful Siva temples in all of India, and spent some of his his 'becoming enlightened' living in the sanctum of said temple.

 

[Marcion]

So first your assessment is absolutely wrong, and irrelevant.

It is very relevant if you want to discuss Hinduism.
If you become a Christian or a Muslim you can no longer belong to or practise any other path or faith, outsiders are seen as heathens or "non-believers". There is no such mentality in Hinduism and this is another reason why it is problematic to categorise Hinduism as a religion.

There is of course Hindutva which is on the rise, but that is caused by sneeky politics and was never a part of Hinduism in the past.
If you speak of Hinduism as a religion among other religions you are comparing apples with pears, there is no comparison and you are forcing a limiting idea on Hinduism which oversimplifies and degrades the culture into something it is not.

And yet most will acknowledge that the system of thoughts and actions that got them to that enlightened state was indeed Hinduism. Sri Ramakrishna worshipped Shakti, Ramana Maharshi grew up entwined in Saivism, and founded his ashram right near one of the most powerful Siva temples in all of India, and spent some of his his 'becoming enlightened' living in the sanctum of said temple.

I'm not sure what your argument is about here, could you elaborate?

 

[Vinayaka]

It would be reasonable and natural for a Baha’i to have Baha’i beliefs. Most Baha’i beliefs albeit one appear to fit well with Hinduism.

1/ Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins. Nothing controversial there.

2/ Krishna is a Manifestation/Incarnation and Avatar of Vishnu/God. Well admittedly I had to add in incarnation and Vishnu myself. Still kinda close. There are of course Hindus who don’t believe in Krishna and Avatars.

3/ Reincarnation is not seen as the literal transmigration of souls. Not all Hindus believe in reincarnation though many do, probably the majority.

4/ Bahá’u’lláh is the Kalki Avatar. That’s the major difference of course between a Baha’i and a Hindu.

Interestingly they are all beliefs that will be sincerely held by Baha’is who study Hinduism and what the Baha’i writings. None of those four beliefs can be completely proved as disproved as far as I can see. But that is the nature of many religious beliefs is it not? To be truly accepting of religious diversity means accommodating differences and change, does it not?

Obviously I disagree. You focus on the similarities, ignoring the differences. Here's a quick list, and of course there are exceptions by individuals on both sides, more on the Hindu side, as it's larger and more diverse

1. Baha'is - believe in a prophet named Baha'u'llah
Hindus - have no prophet

2. Baha'is - have about a million adherents on the planet, totally exaggerate their influence
Hindus - have about a billion adherents, underplay their influence

3. Bahai's - Believe in the concept of infallibility , that the prophet could NEVER be wrong, meaning certain teachings can never change
Hindus - no such thing, all statements by teachers are to be studied, and the individual gets to decide if it holds truth or no, belief is constantly evolving, changing

4. Bahai's - ban the use of statues as channels to divinity
Hindus - use mystical science to beseech the presence of God through statues, called murthies

5. Baha'is - admonish homosexuality as unnatural and believe in gender therapy
Hindus - accept homosexuality as part of the diversity of humanity

6. Bahai's - don't believe in karma, that each individual's actions will return to him in equal force
Hindus - believe in karma, and adjust their behaviour as if every actio is returning

7. Bahai's - believe vegetarianism and other concepts like contradictions becoming clear will happen some time in the future,
Hindus - believe in the eternal now

8. Bahai's - Believe in progressive revelation, that each religion acts much like a prerequisite to the next religion, with the latest (Baha'i) being the current best one, Hinduism being an earlier one
Hindus - believe that there are two main religious lines, dharmic and Abrahamic, and countless others, and that they developed separately, and stay unrelated, with very different core concepts

9. Bahai's - believe that a 'manifestation' is the only person that can accurately communicate with God
Hindus - believe that God's ommunication is much like radio waves, and any person can tune into them anytime with the knowledge of how to do that.

10. Baha'is - commanded to proselytize, and follow that commandment
Hindus - see no need to proselytize, and don't

Very very very differnet paradigms

Need I continue?

 

[firedragon]

It is very relevant if you want to discuss Hinduism.
If you become a Christian or a Muslim you can no longer belong to or practise any other path or faith, outsiders are seen as heathens or "non-believers". There is no such mentality in Hinduism and this is another reason why it is problematic to categorise Hinduism as a religion.

There is of course Hindutva which is on the rise, but that is caused by sneeky politics and was never a part of Hinduism in the past.
If you speak of Hinduism as a religion among other religions you are comparing apples with pears, there is no comparison and you are forcing a limiting idea on Hinduism which oversimplifies and degrades the culture into something it is not.

No comparison.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you Firedragon for starting this thread. As Vinayaka and some of the other Hindus know, I get most of my information about Hinduism from Hindus trying to correct what Baha'is have said about Hinduism. (Hey Adrian, how are you?) So what really pops out for me is that there is no single founder. Rishis, or sages, perceived its knowledge. Hinduism is an "umbrella" term. So because it is a religion that can contain many diverse beliefs within it, why are Buddhism and Jainism considered separate religions? Or, to Hindus, are they considered separate?

I agree with you based on what i have learned. As to your question on Buddhism and Jainism i feel that some Hindus believe they are all sects or rather part of that umbrella of Hinduism. But that i think a Hindu brother can clarify and i would like to read that as well.

 

[firedragon]

Obviously I disagree. You focus on the similarities, ignoring the differences. Here's a quick list, and of course there are exceptions by individuals on both sides, more on the Hindu side, as it's larger and more diverse

1. Baha'is - believe in a prophet named Baha'u'llah
Hindus - have no prophet

2. Baha'is - have about a million adherents on the planet, totally exaggerate their influence
Hindus - have about a billion adherents, underplay their influence

3. Bahai's - Believe in the concept of infallibility , that the prophet could NEVER be wrong, meaning certain teachings can never change
Hindus - no such thing, all statements by teachers are to be studied, and the individual gets to decide if it holds truth or no, belief is constantly evolving, changing

4. Bahai's - ban the use of statues as channels to divinity
Hindus - use mystical science to beseech the presence of God through statues, called murthies

5. Baha'is - admonish homosexuality as unnatural and believe in gender therapy
Hindus - accept homosexuality as part of the diversity of humanity

6. Bahai's - don't believe in karma, that each individual's actions will return to him in equal force
Hindus - believe in karma, and adjust their behaviour as if every actio is returning

7. Bahai's - believe vegetarianism and other concepts like contradictions becoming clear will happen some time in the future,
Hindus - believe in the eternal now

8. Bahai's - Believe in progressive revelation, that each religion acts much like a prerequisite to the next religion, with the latest (Baha'i) being the current best one, Hinduism being an earlier one
Hindus - believe that there are two main religious lines, dharmic and Abrahamic, and countless others, and that they developed separately, and stay unrelated, with very different core concepts

9. Bahai's - believe that a 'manifestation' is the only person that can accurately communicate with God
Hindus - believe that God's ommunication is much like radio waves, and any person can tune into them anytime with the knowledge of how to do that.

10. Baha'is - commanded to proselytize, and follow that commandment
Hindus - see no need to proselytize, and don't

Very very very differnet paradigms

Need I continue?

Excellent.

Its very true that Hindus dont propagate their religion but are very steady in their faith. The numbers speak to that fact. Anyway, thanks a lot.

Brother. Can you tell me what is the best single book that would be best for me to read. I know that no book is good enough, but at least the most reasonable.

 

[Vinayaka]

Excellent.

Its very true that Hindus dont propagate their religion but are very steady in their faith. The numbers speak to that fact. Anyway, thanks a lot.

Brother. Can you tell me what is the best single book that would be best for me to read. I know that no book is good enough, but at least the most reasonable.

The best book is the book of life. Go to a Hindu temple. Watch. Observe. Learn.

As for book recommendations, do you want philosophy, or a general overview?

 

[firedragon]

The best book is the book of life. Go to a Hindu temple. Watch. Observe. Learn.

As for book recommendations, do you want philosophy, or a general overview?

Philosophy

 

[Vinayaka]

Philosophy

Monistic, or dualistic?

 

[firedragon]

Monistic, or dualistic?

What do you follow? Dvaitha, advaitha or advaitha ishwaravadha?

Anyway, i am not interested in scrutinising down to sadhana or even experiences, dharshana or anythingn like that.

But are they so detached that no one has a book that speaks in harmony explaining them like a tharkavidya?

 

[Vinayaka]

What do you follow? Dvaitha, advaitha or advaitha ishwaravadha?

Anyway, i am not interested in scrutinising down to sadhana or even experiences, dharshana or anythingn like that.

But are they so detached that no one has a book that speaks in harmony explaining them like a tharkavidya?

My school is monistic Saiva Siddhantha. The best book on that is the T(h)irumanthiram and the best translation to date was by the Ramakrishna Math. We have no conflict with advaita, but focus more on the path than the conclusions than most advaita schools. I don't know what advatha ishvaravadha even is, or what tharkavidya is. As I mentioned before, philosophy doesn't interest me much.

I know of no single book that compares all the philosophies, but I'm sure in due time another far more knowledgeable Hindu will happen along.

 

[Terry Sampson]

the best single book

Good luck finding one.

Encyclopedia of Hinduism - Wikipedia
Hindustan Times - Archive News | Hindustan Times

 

[Muffled]

As far as i know

1. Hinduism is a term that refers to the religion or/and philosophy of the Hindu. But is it the other way around or is it simply both ways?
2. Scholars have said that it is a pantheistic religion. But is it monotheistic or is it polytheistic?
3. Hinduism doesnt take evil as necessarily bad or does it? Is it the balancing act of the sustainer, the brahma? Or is there diversity in this matter?
4. Is Hinduism the oldest religion? What are the findings? Is it that ancient religions found in the region all just "Hinduism"? Or are they truly scriptural?
5. Are Hindu scripture the oldest found? What are the paleographic/manuscript evidences for the position?
6. As a religion is Hinduism the most diverse and extensive in terms of philosophical wealth?

Why are the Hindu's steady in their faith? Why are their numbers globally so stable and secure, in history, current world and estimated future values? What is Hinduism? Why Hinduism?

I would be honoured to hear some of your thoughts. And i thank you in advance.

I believe if that is all you have it is better than nothing but Christianity is much better.

 

[firedragon]

My school is monistic Saiva Siddhantha. The best book on that is the T(h)irumanthiram and the best translation to date was by the Ramakrishna Math. We have no conflict with advaita, but focus more on the path than the conclusions than most advaita schools. I don't know what advatha ishvaravadha even is, or what tharkavidya is. As I mentioned before, philosophy doesn't interest me much.

I know of no single book that compares all the philosophies, but I'm sure in due time another far more knowledgeable Hindu will happen along.

Tharkavidya is philosophy or rather an argument of philosophy. Tharka meaning philosophical reasoning and vidhya as in science or the study of it. Why i am interested in it is because it is not the practice that interests me but the tharka, the idea, the logic, the philosophy. Not the vyavahara or the activation of it. I can understand that you would disagree with me on whats important, and i am not saying one is more important than the other. This is just what interests me.

So you are of the Dwaitha school of thought. Thats great. I will try and purchase that book anyway. I have heard of the book. Does that mean like a divine manthra? Yes, thanks, i will definitely give it a read. I wish i can read tamil.

Adhwaitha ishwarawadha is the harmonnisation of dwaitha and adwaitha. Its the clap with both hands, one hand dwaitha, the other adwaitha. I understand that you focus more on the practice and activation of the siddhantha or the fundamentals as of course what you school as saivasidhdhantha which actually means i think the foundational or set/decided fundamentals or teachings of saivism. I guess that is much better than wasting time going into the tharka side of things. Philosophers will talk but you are actually doing it or you take action. I respect that.

I guess we all have our own paths to take. thanks very much for engaging my brother. I wish you the best.

May everyday of your life be a maggalakaala. Peace.