Why Hinduism

[firedragon]

Yes. @Aupmanyav is a strong atheist who sees the religious traditions of his fellow Hindu as being largely mythological. I’m arguing that Krishna, arguably the most widely and revered Deity in Hinduism was in fact an historical figure, a great man who has been mythologised as many religious leaders are.

For example Krishna is seen as being the literal incarnation of Vishnu in much the same way as Christ is seen by many Christians as being literally God.

Krishna has a more comprehensive depiction in the hindu scripture but one cannot argue that he is the most widely revered. He could have been a historic figure, and maybe all the deities were historic figure. People talk about the historicity of Krishna more than others because of the more comprehensive narrations of his life in places like the Vishnu Purana but that doesnt mean the others are not historical figures. Anything is a possibility. If you look at Hindus most of the temples are for Vishnu, Shiva, Rama and Krishna. You cant pinpoint and say Krishna is the most. It all depends on the sociology of the area in concern.

Krishna is as i remember the 7th or 8th incarnation of Vishnu but then his status has a gradual elevation. Yes, i do believe these are very possible veneration based theologies. If you read the Puranas Krishna will even be elevated to an even higher level than Vishnu himself. So there will be similarities with certain Christologies but also many many dissimilarities.

All of this said and done, maybe some of the other figures were also real historical people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do all monotheistic religions make it compulsory to believe in God?

They do it because otherwise the people who established them would be left with no authority. If people will not believe in God \ Allah, then how can one claim to be a prophet \ son \ messenger \ manifestation \ mahdi with a message from the said God \ Allah. That is why not to believe in God \ Allah is the greatest sin in monotheistic religions and in many religions qualifies for beheading or eternal hell after death or pouring of hot oil on the head till their brains melt. Their are special hateful designations for such persons. And when there is prophet \ son \ messenger \ manifestation \ mahdi bearing a message from the said God \ Allah, one is not entitled to differ from him even in the minutest details. Otherwise, that is blasphemy. Again such person should be burned on the stake, impaled, all his possessions should be divided among the believers. That is God's \ Allah's bounty - Maale-e-ghanimat. That is what monotheist religions have brought to the world.

In Indian religions, there is no bar from differing from a teacher. I differ from Mahavira because of his absurd Cosmogony, differ from Buddha because he advised against thinking about creation of the world, differ from Sankara who accepted the existence of Ishawra (God) even if at the worldly level (Vyavaharika), and with Guru Nanak for not explaining his philosophy clearly. He was a monist, but his followers became monotheists because of his confusing langauge.

 

[Vinayaka]

Interesting guy Bede Griffiths representing the Christian Ashram Movement of the Catholic Church.

Here’s what the Catholic Church at the second Vatican Council have to say about Hinduism:

The Second Vatican Council, in its Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, said that "the Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions". In Christian sannyasa, Hindu holy texts such as the Mahabharata and the Puranas are considered to be gifts from God. Brother John Martin Sahajananda summarizes this Roman Catholic teaching as, "All the sacred scriptures are a gift of God to humanity.”

Christian Ashram Movement - Wikipedia

I’m sure there are many in Hinduism who have likewise embraced their Abrahamic cousins in a similar manner eschewing division and tribalism.

John Martin Sahajananda was here on these forums proselytizing his confusing mix. He left. Griffiths was very close to being excommunicated from his church. Go figure.

Some folks seem to think diversity is evil. Personally, I celebrate it.

 

[Marcion]

Depending on the person, Hinduism for them can be either monotheistic or polytheistic. Actually Hindu monotheism is more like henotheism: belief or dedication to one God, but accepting the existence of other gods and their reverence. Someone told me my beliefs are "theologically monist, and ritually polytheistic", for example. But I'm probably more henotheist because the focus of my worship is Krishna, but I do not exclude other deities either at home or in temple.

Is it that Hindus accept the existence of "other gods and their reverence"? Or is it rather that they accept that people worship God through different expressions or forms?
Christians also call themselves monotheistic but their worship is directed both to God as well as to Jesus. Is the form of Hindu worship through an Ista Deva comparable to that?
I wonder if Bahai's see Bahaullah as their Ista Deva as well?
Perhaps they are not allowed to give their founder that high status, just like Muslims with their founder Muhammed.
The Ista Deva is perhaps unique to India because up to now no Ista Deva chose to be born outside of India. There must be a reason for that. The concentration of God-centered devotion has always been highest in India comparative to the rest of the planet, so that collective yearning must have caused them to take birth there rather than elsewhere.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it that Hindus accept the existence of "other gods and their reverence"? Or is it rather that they accept that people worship God through different expressions or forms?
Christians also call themselves monotheistic but their worship is directed both to God as well as to Jesus. Is the form of Hindu worship through an Ishta Deva comparable to that?
I wonder if Bahai's see Bahaullah as their Ishta Deva as well?

Hindus generally accept all Gods and Godesses of their pantheon and may also have a chosen deity (Ishta). So, they will generally not have any problem with another person who has a different chosen deity, because they are not denying that deity.
I am not interested in comparing Hindus and Christians. We are two different view points. So, I will leave the comparison to you.
Bahais can accept Bahaullah as their deity because they say there is no difference between their Allah and the manifestation and the manifestation can be taken as Allah (Ref. Adrian).

 

[Dawnofhope]

Bahais can accept Bahaullah as their deity because they say there is no difference between their Allah and the manifestation and the manifestation can be taken as Allah (Ref. Adrian).

I think you have either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what’s been said to you. Bahá’u’lláh is no more God than Krishna was literally God. He was a man who walked the earth and lived amongst other men as we do. However the Divine qualities such as love, compassion and wisdom manifest themselves to a degree that is incomparable to ordinary men. It is in this manner God/Vishnu makes Himself known. So Krishna was an Avatar of Vishnu. I don’t believe He was literally Vishnu as some Hindus believe. He Manifested Vishnu. As Vishnu is Transcendent beyond human form He has no physical body. Krishna’s physical body can in no way represent Vishnu, only His spiritual qualities.

 

[Dawnofhope]

John Martin Sahajananda was here on these forums proselytizing his confusing mix. He left. Griffiths was very close to being excommunicated from his church. Go figure.

Some folks seem to think diversity is evil. Personally, I celebrate it.

One man’s confusion is crystal like clarity to another.

The Catholic Church in seeing itself as the one true church used to view itself as the repository of all that was good and true. However the Catholics have undergone change and transformation in the way it views others. The second Vatican Council in the 1960s became a major turning point to embracing other faiths. Of course there are limits to celebrating diversity for us all. For some but certainly not all Hindus it ends abruptly with the Abrahamic Faiths.

I too celebrate diversity but one that spans the divide across East and West.

 

[Jainarayan]

Is it that Hindus accept the existence of "other gods and their reverence"? Or is it rather that they accept that people worship God through different expressions or forms?

I think it's both. Many Hindus, probably largely rural, are probably hard polytheists. Others are varying degrees of polytheism. In either case, it seems all are open to "to each his own" and "it may not be right for me, but it's right for you, and that's cool".

 

[Jainarayan]

Bahá’u’lláh is no more God than Krishna was literally God. He was a man who walked the earth and lived amongst other men as we do.

But here's the rub... to Hindus, Vaishnavas at least, Krishna literally is God. Not a god, but God himself... kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 Chapter 10 of the Bhagavad Gita also knocks it out of the ballpark with Krishna detailing all his attributes and glories that are attributable only to God, as well as Arjuna recognizing him as the Supreme Brahman. Of course this is not a pan-Hindu belief. Others see him as a god.

 

[firedragon]

I think you have either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what’s been said to you. Bahá’u’lláh is no more God than Krishna was literally God. He was a man who walked the earth and lived amongst other men as we do. However the Divine qualities such as love, compassion and wisdom manifest themselves to a degree that is incomparable to ordinary men. It is in this manner God/Vishnu makes Himself known. So Krishna was an Avatar of Vishnu. I don’t believe He was literally Vishnu as some Hindus believe. He Manifested Vishnu. As Vishnu is Transcendent beyond human form He has no physical body. Krishna’s physical body can in no way represent Vishnu, only His spiritual qualities.

Do you have particular dharmic scripture you follow?

 

[Vinayaka]

One man’s confusion is crystal like clarity to another.

The Catholic Church in seeing itself as the one true church used to view itself as the repository of all that was good and true. However the Catholics have undergone change and transformation in the way it views others. The second Vatican Council in the 1960s became a major turning point to embracing other faiths. Of course there are limits to celebrating diversity for us all. For some but certainly not all Hindus it ends abruptly with the Abrahamic Faiths.

I too celebrate diversity but one that spans the divide across East and West.

All talk and no action, until I see some action. There are still priest problems as we speak. There has yet to be any real reconciliation with native peoples or conquered cultures. Anybody can talk the talk, but to do more than apologise for past misdeeds is also a necessary step. Money is still being funneled into Hindu India.

When I talk of respecting diversity, it ends when the part does adharmic behaviour. Sounds like you respect it all, including the abuse by priests, or high population growth causing poverty because of an unwillingness to condone birth control? I actually quite like many Catholics, but when anyone (anyone, including Hindus) uses deception, gains money through false pretenses, or a wide range of other errant behaviour, then it's not diversity, but criminality.

 

[metis]

Let me just say there there's been a lot of changes on this with the Vatican under Pope Francis and with the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, and the effect is being noticed. Such recent incidents are way down, and most of the charges being made over the last few years are against some clergy members which predate these changes.

In India, Catholic clergy are told not to proselytize as that is forbidden under Indian law. On top of that, Catholic social teachings forbid us from judging who'll go to heaven versus hell, thus there's no condemnation of Hindus per se.

 

[Marcion]

But here's the rub... to Hindus, Vaishnavas at least, Krishna literally is God. Not a god, but God himself... kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 Chapter 10 of the Bhagavad Gita also knocks it out of the ballpark with Krishna detailing all his attributes and glories that are attributable only to God, as well as Arjuna recognizing him as the Supreme Brahman. Of course this is not a pan-Hindu belief. Others see him as a god.

Krishna is Bhagavan because He has all the attributes and qualities of Bhagavan (just like Lord Shiva).
But this does not mean that Krishna or Shiva are identical with Brahma, because there is nothing outside of Brahma, God is the Absolute, nothing relative.

You can see Lord Krishna as well as Lord Shiva as Bhagavan without being a polytheist because Bhagavan is not the same thing as Brahma. God takes such mysterious forms (appearing as the Guru) in order to help the suffering humanity to move on to a next stage.
Devotionally Bhagavan is loved as God, but the form, shape or personality of the Guru is not the same thing as God.

But I realize that this is not the general Hindu viewpoint, just one of many viewpoints.
In Buddhism and parts of Islam, the idea of Bhagavan is taboo or seen as not realistic.

 

[CG Didymus]

Wikipedia is actually just as good as most encyclopaedias in regards providing fair and balanced commentary in a scholarly yet accessible manner.

Check out some of the references who believe Krishna to be historical.

Guy L. Beck is a scholar, author, musician, educator, historian of religions, and musicologist. A Fulbright-Nehru Senior Research Fellow and Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies (Oxford University, UK), he is Lecturer in Philosophy, Religious Studies and Asian Studies at Tulane University, and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Loyola University New Orleans.

Prof. Guy Beck

Lavanya Vemsani, is a scholar and professor of History specializing in Indian History and Religions, in the department of Social Sciences at Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.[1] She researches and publishes on subjects of ancient Indian history and religions as well as current history of India.

Lavanya Vemsani - Wikipedia

You should be pleased that Hinduism is not all based on mythology as some Christians claim.

What is Hinduism and what do Hindus believe? | GotQuestions.org

Krishna was only one of the incarnations. What do you believe about the other ones.... historical or mythical?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

So there are rishis and enlightened gurus. These, I would assume, after many life times attained a high place of spiritual awareness to where they could help and teach others how to reach an enlightened state. Then there are the avatars. These are incarnation of a God that are sent from time to time to bring spiritual teachings. But not all Hindus believe in the avatars? Now the ones that do believe in them, do they believe in all of them? Or some just Krishna or Rama or one of the others? And when it comes to rishis and gurus, do all Hindus believe in all of them or at least respect them as being Holy, even though, I would suppose, that Hindus can pick and choose which to follow?

 

[Dawnofhope]

But here's the rub... to Hindus, Vaishnavas at least, Krishna literally is God. Not a god, but God himself... kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 Chapter 10 of the Bhagavad Gita also knocks it out of the ballpark with Krishna detailing all his attributes and glories that are attributable only to God, as well as Arjuna recognizing him as the Supreme Brahman. Of course this is not a pan-Hindu belief. Others see him as a god.

Thank you. That is an extremely helpful comment.

I have on occasion heard some Hindus refer to their scripture as being Divinely inspired and in some cases infallible in a similar manner to the Abrahamic. So how should we view Hindu scriptures and if their origins are of a Divine nature, which ones are and which ones are not? Do Vaishnava view Krishna as being an actual historic figure? If He was Vishnu who took the form of a man, is He seen as being a man as well as being God Incarnate?

Although the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion, some Baha'is will consider themselves Hindus, especially those who have been raised in a Hindu family and then accepted Baha'u'llah as an incarnation of Vishnu as Krishna. I grew up Christian so am not in that category. I simply see myself as a Baha'i and completely avoid the question of any identification with Hinduism. However Baha'is have something to say about Hinduism. Do we call Hindus idolatrous Devil worshippers? No. Do we accuse Hindus of following a false religion? No. Baha'is make statements that are far more problematic. Baha'is say Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins. We believe Krishna is a Manifestation of God. We believe in Avatars. So if we are going to step into the realm of beliefs about the Hindu Deity, Krishna, shouldn't Baha'is have the decency to believe in Him as Vaishnavas do? Manifestation of God isn't exactly the same as Incarnation of God though there is arguably some overlap.

For Baha'is if a Manifestation of God says I'm a man just like everyone else, He speaks the truth. If He were also to say, "I am God" He also speaks the truth. Therein lies a paradox. How can a man also be God?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you have particular dharmic scripture you follow?

There is nothing in the Baha'i writings to suggest one set of Hindu scriptures are to be followed and exalted over another set. An obvious starting point would be the Bhagavata Purana and Mahabharata but as you said in another post, we can't discount Shiva and other Deities weren't historic either.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Krishna was only one of the incarnations. What do you believe about the other ones.... historical or mythical?

Krishna was the eight Avatar of Vishnu and Buddha the ninth. Obviously Buddha is historic for Baha'is. No doubt there is an abundance of mythology for both Krishna and Buddha that obscures and distorts their historicity. We simply don't know if earlier Avatars were historic or mythical or a combination of both.

 

[Marcion]

So there are rishis and enlightened gurus. These, I would assume, after many life times attained a high place of spiritual awareness to where they could help and teach others how to reach an enlightened state. Then there are the avatars. These are incarnation of a God that are sent from time to time to bring spiritual teachings. But not all Hindus believe in the avatars? Now the ones that do believe in them, do they believe in all of them? Or some just Krishna or Rama or one of the others? And when it comes to rishis and gurus, do all Hindus believe in all of them or at least respect them as being Holy, even though, I would suppose, that Hindus can pick and choose which to follow?

I don't think you can ever speak for Hindus in general, Hinduism is not a religon and there are many different philosophies or differences in the details.
My samgha does not believe in the reality of "avatars", god or gods do not reincarnate (and God does not/cannot incarnate within Himself as a whole, it is an illogical idea).

We see only God as the Guru, not any rishi or any other type of human teacher with followers.
Which does not mean that the teachings of the rishis or other teacher cannot be very usefull also, it depends on their level of realisation and power to express that in words.
Bhagavan, who is a special and mysterious incarnation does not himself have any teachers, He is born as a fully realised Guru with all the qualities and powers of Bhagavan (which means someone who has all the 'bhags' or spiritual powers).

Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna were Bhagavan and their words are automatically those of the Guru, but since they did not author any books, their teachings are not preserved in perfect form, although better so for Krishna than for Lord Shiva (who lived thousands of years earlier even before script was used).

Because they lived so long ago, the stories of their lives have in time been mixed with many mythological stories that have no base in reality. Also many other smaller gods and godesses were later linked to especially Shiva eventhough this is not historical. So they were as it were encapsulated in religious Hindu mythology and their teachings were diluted and partially lost.

We don't see Rama as Bhagavan, but as a mostly mythical god created in order to educate people in dharma, whose story is even older than that of the historical Lord Shiva.
But we don't believe that you can only develop spiritually by devotion to a historical Bhagavan. Whether it is the mythical Rama or even Jesus, what matters is that you surrender your I-feeling (individual consciousness) to the Supreme Consciousness or God (can also e.g. be done through the Buddhist sanga or mystical Sufism).

A Hindu can pick a path that suits the person best, a path that fits your personality. I suppose that is also true to a lesser extent for Christians. Hinduism is however much deeper, broader and freeer than most Abrahamic religions. But even between the many sects and branches there are also many things they have in common.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All talk and no action, until I see some action. There are still priest problems as we speak. There has yet to be any real reconciliation with native peoples or conquered cultures. Anybody can talk the talk, but to do more than apologise for past misdeeds is also a necessary step. Money is still being funneled into Hindu India.

When I talk of respecting diversity, it ends when the part does adharmic behaviour. Sounds like you respect it all, including the abuse by priests, or high population growth causing poverty because of an unwillingness to condone birth control? I actually quite like many Catholics, but when anyone (anyone, including Hindus) uses deception, gains money through false pretenses, or a wide range of other errant behaviour, then it's not diversity, but criminality.

Apparently the Catholics are making concerted efforts to constructively develop a better relationship with Hindus. Baha'is are often appreciative of the efforts of Catholics to participate in interfaith dialogue. We share much in common with them but we don't support abuse and the use of deception. Nor do the Catholics of course and they are making amends. Contraception has its place. I understand there has even been movement amongst Catholics in this regard during recent times.