Why Hinduism?

[firedragon]

Interesting.
I learned something new today lol

I was more referring to the very rigid lines drawn in the sand between like pantheism, monotheism and polytheism. Those don’t always translate very well in many eastern traditions. That’s all I meant, really

Wohow. SomeRandom, that's interesting. And I am gonna trouble you for information.

In Hinduism, as I understand it's Pantheism. Don't take me wrong, I don't know Hinduism that well. So I need to be educated.

Pantheism can sit well with monotheism. Not a problem at all. Pantheism is not an opposite or a different theology to monotheism by default. By definition, monotheism just means one God. That's it. Pantheism is also as logically possible to be monotheistic as any other theistic view with this "one God" principle. There is absolutely no conflict in that matter.

The conflict between polytheism and monotheism is by definition obvious. But in my paradigm, I do not consider Hinduism polytheistic. I do consider it monotheistic. Of course, and/or pantheistic.

The conflict does lie on theologies, not in these terms. In Christianity as an example, the initial shaker or mover was God. In pantheism by definition God is the universe and the universe is God. So that's a big conflict. But you explained that this line is too think in Hinduism so I did learn that. Though I do not believe the logical problem is not solved, I have a lot to think about based on your answer. That's the value of this forum.

People like Spinoza propagated Panentheism which is a harmony between the Jewish monotheism and pantheism. It was an attempt to bring creationism with pantheism because in pantheism God is the universe and the universe is God which to people like him poses a logical problem. To create, God needs to be separate from the universe. Thus, he would contend that God is separate, AND part of the universe. But also people like Ibn Arabi would make the case that since God cannot be apart of the universe since the universe is all we have, and that is a naturalistic explanation of the evolution of the universe from an inception, this is the most logical explanation. That's the reason I question the creation aspect and the pantheistic aspect. It's not some arbitrary question with no reason.

This is the reason I wish to understand how this line is as thin as could be.

Anyway I guess I spoke too much here, so I shall resign. Thank you so much for your most valuable information.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

You recall correctly.



The majority of Advaitins are theist. @Aupmanyav, who is an atheist, and I, who am a transtheist, are more the exception than the rule. Adi Shankaracharya, who is one of the best known Vedic scholars and teachers in Advaita, was a theist.

That said, Advaita Vedanta does not require gods in order for one to subscribe to it's philosophies. It's foundation is realization of the Self as Brahman. No gods required.

Ooooh I see. I am sorry I was mistaken.

I don't yet understand what a transtheist is, but I will do my research. That being said, I would like to read more on the advaita vedanta being non-theistic on the flip side. I was honestly under the impression that to be an Atheist you have to be advaitha, not vedantha. Just consider how ignorant people could be.

So Advaitha Vendantha is not necessarily a theistic philosophy. Understood. Needs some studying.

Thank you very much Salix. This is revelation to me. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Back to the OP:

I identify with Hinduism because it's the only religion I'm aware of that aligns perfectly with my worldview.



I'm not sure exactly what a school of causation or occasionalism is. In my school of philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, causation is a part of Maya.



I am not a pantheist. I am a transtheist. Maya (time/space/causation) appears as a creation in Brahman. However, this is avidya (false knowledge). Only Brahman exists.



I'm not an atheist, but one of the beauties of Hinduism is you don't have to reconcile beliefs with another philosophy. Indians have been debating philosophies for centuries, and the only thing they agree upon is that their philosophies can't be reconciled with one another.

1. Causation is like the domino effect. Every occurrence is caused by a previous occurrence. I am sure you understand that. Occasionalism is the idea that every single instance is created, not caused. Causation is just a "Maya". So MAYBE, your idea is the same as occasionalism. But it may have some cross discussion.

2. I do understand Maya. I mean as a word, but not as a concept in Hinduism. Maya to me means an illusion or a manifestation of something you don't really understand. Avidhya is simply unscientific. So I do get it. It's false knowledge as you say. So only brahman exists. Everything else is an illusion, so thinking this is all absolutely true is Avidhya. Is that correct?

I still don't understand what transtheism is so mind my ignorance. If you have time, please clarify the questions I asked in a few words. That's good enough.

Peace.

Edit: By the way, this is a very informative post Salix. I really appreciate it.

 

[firedragon]

By his posts and some spellings, I assume that @firedragon is from South East Asia. And the food there differs from North Indian food. I was informed by @firedragon that what is available in Thailand are not cockroaches but crickets. I thank him for the information. I also searched internet about Bat-Saliva, and I came to know that it is not Bat-Saliva but a nest built by a species of birds with their saliva (Swiftlets). I did not say that @firedragon eats this or that. There is nothing wrong in eating something which is not harmful, is nourishing and tasty. FYI, I resent ban on beef in India in some regions including Delhi. We neither get good pork meat nor beef. We are limited to goat meat (sheep meat too is avoided in our family because of smell) or the God-forsaken chicken. Is not that pitiable?

Swiftlet - Wikipedia (Culinary use)

Black Swiftlet

English spellings? Utterly nonsensical mate. Don't try to box people into what ever you dream up. It's not relevant and is either racist or bigoted.

We are discussing in English. So English transliteration of eastern languages are not always accurate. And I don't do cut and paste like you from here and there so my "English spellings" maybe different to your cut and paste. There is no necessity to make assumptions of other peoples origin. Maybe you are used to box people into some race or some origin but it's not relevant to an Internet forum.

I have never in my life, ever, studied a single language from the viewpoint of English. And that's the biggest mistake many people do. I could be wrong, but a language should be studied from it's own merit, not with an English background. It's difficult, but eventually, the learning is great. So when I type either Sanskrit or Pali or Arabic in English, I have no clue how you treat it as "spellings". You are as ignorant in this as a "bad" you speak of saliva I eat because what you do is cut and paste. The pronunciation in Sanskrit with the D or a TH is as different as the sun and the moon. But your cut and paste will have the appropriate English transliteration. that's not relevant to me. As a decent person if you don't understand a normal typing and your cut and paste, you can just ask and clarify. There is no necessity to be racist and box someone to south India. I have no clue what in the world you are on about.

).

 

[loverofhumanity]

This thread is opened to understand Hinduism better. My knowledge of Hinduism is very limited, but what I do know is that Hinduism is probably the most generic name used for the largest library of philosophies in the world. I remember vividly a scholar of sociology of religion once stated in a Youtube video that "the Buddha was teaching hinduism to hindus" and all the Buddhists who watched it got pretty ticked off.

I know that Hindu's don't proselytise. But as a group or a whole population, in global statistics Hinduism has been, is and in my opinion "will be" the most stable through time to come. Their number don't change much. This indicates that though people rarely convert to Hinduism (as a general statement), they don't convert out of Hinduism to other theologies and there has to be a reason for that conviction. I would like to understand that better.

Hinduism contains atheistic philosophies as well. As I understand the Advaitha (not advanta vedantha) arm is atheistic but indepth understanding is needed.

Though you don't proselytise, would you be kind enough to share some thoughts on "why hinduism"? So of course this might entail the question "Why not other theologies but Hinduism". Thank you very much.

I am editing this to add a few questions if anyone is willing to contribute to. I guess some questions might not be pertinent to the non-theistic schools of thought.

1. Do you follow the school of causation or occasionalism? Based on what arm of Hinduism?
2. Are you a pantheist? If so, who was the creator? Did this creator exist prior to creation which seems like a logical entailment to have existed prior to creation?
3. As an atheist how would you reconcile with the other schools of thought who have theistic beliefs? I am associating that question to others who use the same literature for their beliefs.

I hope these questions don't derail the main question of "why hinduism".

Thank you again.

This thread is an example to all of us. Wanting to learn and being humble instead of being critical and judgemental.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing there, @firedragon. You spell certain words in the South Indian way. And you mentioned in one of your posts that you have a South Indian connection but do not have any known relation here. There are Tamil people in South-East Asia. So, this is quite normal. For example in the opening post of this topic, you spelled 'Vedanta' (the normal North Indian spelling) and 'Vedantha' (the normal South Indian spelling). None of them is wrong. That is how one guesses from forum posts. This does in no way mean that you don't know English. Don't get so worked up.

However, @firedragon, it is your topic. You can certainly ask me not to post in this topic and in that case I will post no more in the topic.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I do understand Maya. I mean as a word, but not as a concept in Hinduism. Maya to me means an illusion or a manifestation of something you don't really understand. Avidhya is simply unscientific. So I do get it. It's false knowledge as you say. So only brahman exists. Everything else is an illusion, so thinking this is all absolutely true is Avidhya. Is that correct?

Correct.

I still don't understand what transtheism is so mind my ignorance. If you have time, please clarify the questions I asked in a few words. That's good enough.

Transtheim is neither atheism nor theism. It is beyond them.

I acknowledge the existence of gods in relative reality and the purpose they serve for theists (and atheists), but they are of no practical use to me and are irrelevant to my worldview.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And @loverofhumanity trying to cash on our differences further amuses me,

How is he doing this? He simply expressed the desire to learn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Transtheim is neither atheism nor theism. It is beyond them.
I acknowledge the existence of gods in relative reality and the purpose they serve for theists (and atheists), but they are of no practical use to me and are irrelevant to my worldview.

I suppose that is like Sankara. He accepted Ishvara in Vyavaharika (wold of illusion) but not in Paramarthika (absolute reality).

 

[SalixIncendium]

I suppose that is like Sankara. He accepted Ishvara in Vyavaharika (wold of illusion) but not in Paramarthika (absolute reality).

Exactly.

 

[sayak83]

This thread is opened to understand Hinduism better. My knowledge of Hinduism is very limited, but what I do know is that Hinduism is probably the most generic name used for the largest library of philosophies in the world. I remember vividly a scholar of sociology of religion once stated in a Youtube video that "the Buddha was teaching hinduism to hindus" and all the Buddhists who watched it got pretty ticked off.

I know that Hindu's don't proselytise. But as a group or a whole population, in global statistics Hinduism has been, is and in my opinion "will be" the most stable through time to come. Their number don't change much. This indicates that though people rarely convert to Hinduism (as a general statement), they don't convert out of Hinduism to other theologies and there has to be a reason for that conviction. I would like to understand that better.

Hinduism contains atheistic philosophies as well. As I understand the Advaitha (not advanta vedantha) arm is atheistic but indepth understanding is needed.

Though you don't proselytise, would you be kind enough to share some thoughts on "why hinduism"? So of course this might entail the question "Why not other theologies but Hinduism". Thank you very much.

I am editing this to add a few questions if anyone is willing to contribute to. I guess some questions might not be pertinent to the non-theistic schools of thought.

1. Do you follow the school of causation or occasionalism? Based on what arm of Hinduism?
2. Are you a pantheist? If so, who was the creator? Did this creator exist prior to creation which seems like a logical entailment to have existed prior to creation?
3. As an atheist how would you reconcile with the other schools of thought who have theistic beliefs? I am associating that question to others who use the same literature for their beliefs.

I hope these questions don't derail the main question of "why hinduism".

Thank you again.

A very nice and welcome thread. I am born a Hindu in India and (typical of Hinduism), my experiential, spiritual, rational and philosophical growth has never moved me to a position that is outside of the vast range of ways a Hindu can be. Wherever I was in my journey, I have always found sufficient resources within Hinduism (as well as Buddhism) to navigate through it.

My metaphysical position is that of neutral monism Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The difference with the traditional neutral monism is that I believe there is just one type of neutral monistic essence that is underneath all things.... which I identify as Brahman of the Upanisads. The observed diversity of the world is in outer form and interaction functions only, but they all have a unitary neutral base which the Hindu Upanisads identify as the Brahman. We can access the mental awareness and qualia aspects of the neutral entity through inner reflections and meditations while we can access the causal/event/material aspect of the very same neutral entity through external senses, sciences etc. But in the the end these two aspects are the same at their root and just one thing being grasped differently.

 

[Vinayaka]

This thread is opened to understand Hinduism better. My knowledge of Hinduism is very limited, but what I do know is that Hinduism is probably the most generic name used for the largest library of philosophies in the world. I remember vividly a scholar of sociology of religion once stated in a Youtube video that "the Buddha was teaching hinduism to hindus" and all the Buddhists who watched it got pretty ticked off.

I know that Hindu's don't proselytise. But as a group or a whole population, in global statistics Hinduism has been, is and in my opinion "will be" the most stable through time to come. Their number don't change much. This indicates that though people rarely convert to Hinduism (as a general statement), they don't convert out of Hinduism to other theologies and there has to be a reason for that conviction. I would like to understand that better.

Hinduism contains atheistic philosophies as well. As I understand the Advaitha (not advanta vedantha) arm is atheistic but indepth understanding is needed.

Though you don't proselytise, would you be kind enough to share some thoughts on "why hinduism"? So of course this might entail the question "Why not other theologies but Hinduism". Thank you very much.

I am editing this to add a few questions if anyone is willing to contribute to. I guess some questions might not be pertinent to the non-theistic schools of thought.

1. Do you follow the school of causation or occasionalism? Based on what arm of Hinduism?
2. Are you a pantheist? If so, who was the creator? Did this creator exist prior to creation which seems like a logical entailment to have existed prior to creation?
3. As an atheist how would you reconcile with the other schools of thought who have theistic beliefs? I am associating that question to others who use the same literature for their beliefs.

I hope these questions don't derail the main question of "why hinduism".

Thank you again.

I'm a practical practicing Saivite Hindu, and although I have philosophy somewhere in the back of my mind, it's not something I think much about, so I can't contribute much to this thread, as it's about philosophy. I'll give you my POV on your questions.
1) I don't know what causation or occasionalism is. My arm of Hinduism is monistic Saiva Siddhanta, sometimes called Saiva Advaita.
2. I'm either a pantheist or a panentheist, but don't remember the difference. Siva is the emanator (not creator, as He's not separate from His creation... think sparks from a fire, raindrops from a cloud. As Aup referenced, He extends Hinself though the tandava dance, demonstrated within Nataraja. Formless becoming form.
3. Atheism is there. although it is debatable. Some atheists, like Aup believe in Brahman, and some folks call Brahman God, although it doesn't fit into the general concept of God. For me, Brahman is on of the three simultaneous perfections of God.

I will recommend a book written to explain Hinduism. Although it was written by the monks in the sampradaya I belong to (with help from many writers) it explains Hinduism well, and best of all it's free to read: What is Hinduism? by Himalayan Academy

There are some general fundamental beliefs that separate us (all dharmic faiths) from the other people on this planet. Not all Hindus believe this way, but enough of us do for it to have an impact.

1) We're souls, not ego/personalities, and we're on a many lifetime path. - There is no hurry, life goes on. The psychological impact of this is immeasurable. Tolerance, for example, comes from that, as anyone who is different from us, well ... we've had a lifetime or two just like them.
2) Behavior is more important than belief. - The path to moksha is travelled by how we behave, not by what we believe. In other words, the simple uneducated wife of a simple farmer, by raising her children with kindness and love, gets further along the spiritual path that the famous scholar or priest who can recite a million slokas or debate until the sky turns green, but ignores his own family, gets nowhere.

Best wishes in learning what it is you wish to learn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How is he doing this? He simply expressed the desire to learn.

I agree. I have removed reference to @loverof humanity in my previous post. I too commend @firedragon for his quest for knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hinduism seems to be mostly about achieving a common (and ambitious!) language for spiritual and religious matters. Belief as such seems to be secondary, arguably very minor even.

There is also a lot of practice, some of which (Bhakti Yoga) is easier to understand from Abrahamic expectations than other forms of practice.

3. As an atheist how would you reconcile with the other schools of thought who have theistic beliefs? I am associating that question to others who use the same literature for their beliefs.

There is no need for reconciliation. Hinduism is hinduism. It is highly aware and respectful of differences of belief and practice.

Heck, I find the insistence of some Vaishnava in making a Krishna Avatar out of the Buddha more funny than wrong as such. It is funny that some non-Buddhists do not believe us when we say that the Buddha was not a god (or more properly, a Deva or an Avatar of same).

There are also other "divisions", such as Shivaites and Vaishnavas, or the various Sampradayas. They are very significant, but awareness of that diversity is far more important than attempts at establishing whether any are "right" or "wrong" (if that would even make sense; I think not).

Those disagreements might perhaps be a serious matter among Abrahamists. But Hinduists rarely if ever make much of an issue of it.

In truth, the tendency of some of wanting to subsum Buddhism (and Sikhism) into Hinduism proper is a much greater issue. And even that is sort of minor by comparison.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hinduism seems to be mostly about achieving a common (and ambitious!) language for spiritual and religious matters. Belief as such seems to be secondary, arguably very minor even.

There is also a lot of practice, some of which (Bhakti Yoga) is easier to understand from Abrahamic expectations than other forms of practice.




There is no need for reconciliation. Hinduism is hinduism. It is highly aware and respectful of differences of belief and practice.

Heck, I find the insistence of some Vaishnava in making a Krishna Avatar out of the Buddha more funny than wrong as such. It is funny that some non-Buddhists do not believe us when we say that the Buddha was not a god (or more properly, a Deva or an Avatar of same).

There are also other "divisions", such as Shivaites and Vaishnavas, or the various Sampradayas. They are very significant, but awareness of that diversity is far more important than attempts at establishing whether any are "right" or "wrong" (if that would even make sense; I think not).

Those disagreements might perhaps be a serious matter among Abrahamists. But Hinduists rarely if ever make much of an issue of it.

In truth, the tendency of some of wanting to subsum Buddhism (and Sikhism) into Hinduism proper is a much greater issue. And even that is sort of minor by comparison.

To me as a limited culture Western I understand it through my colored lense of in effect psychology, yet it ends the same place as your points.
If I try to go wide all worldviews are about what matters and what matters is religion/psychology for the variations of doing true/right/good and false/wrong/bad.
And I can see that metacognitively in e.g. this:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

The joke is say for the claim that truth matters, is in general for the method of truth not true.
I mean I can do it for truth, but I cheat because I use at least 5 different versions of truth that doesn't add up to the truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In truth, the tendency of some of wanting to subsume Buddhism (and Sikhism) into Hinduism proper is a much greater issue. And even that is sort of minor by comparison.

There is no question of subsuming. But there is no denying that from my advaita position, there is hardly any difference between Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism. They are brother religions from the same stock. I have no problem with their independence. It is just like brothers wanting to have their separate establishments at some point of time. That is OK, that happens in life too. Nothing wrong with Jainsim too, though their cosmology is a bit complicated. There are things in each of these which they have done better than the others.

 

[firedragon]

Correct.



Transtheim is neither atheism nor theism. It is beyond them.

I acknowledge the existence of gods in relative reality and the purpose they serve for theists (and atheists), but they are of no practical use to me and are irrelevant to my worldview.

My God. Salix. You need to explain this more. I dont get it. I'm sorry if I am ignorant but I am.

But if you think I should do my own research, I am with you. No problem. Appreciated.

 

[firedragon]

A very nice and welcome thread. I am born a Hindu in India and (typical of Hinduism), my experiential, spiritual, rational and philosophical growth has never moved me to a position that is outside of the vast range of ways a Hindu can be. Wherever I was in my journey, I have always found sufficient resources within Hinduism (as well as Buddhism) to navigate through it.

My metaphysical position is that of neutral monism Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The difference with the traditional neutral monism is that I believe there is just one type of neutral monistic essence that is underneath all things.... which I identify as Brahman of the Upanisads. The observed diversity of the world is in outer form and interaction functions only, but they all have a unitary neutral base which the Hindu Upanisads identify as the Brahman. We can access the mental awareness and qualia aspects of the neutral entity through inner reflections and meditations while we can access the causal/event/material aspect of the very same neutral entity through external senses, sciences etc. But in the the end these two aspects are the same at their root and just one thing being grasped differently.

OH-MY-GOD. This is unbelievable. I don't know if you even have a clue how profound what you said is.

thank you so much Sayak 83. I really don't know what to say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My God. Salix. You need to explain this more. I dont get it. I'm sorry if I am ignorant but I am.

But if you think I should do my own research, I am with you. No problem. Appreciated.

To you as you reality is with God and all other forms of understanding must fit that God. That is your way of doing like you do it. So it makes no sense to understand reality differently, because reality is God to and thus independent of you God is reality. You can think like that, but it won't stop the rest of us doing it different, but you must fit us in as theists, because we are all thesits, because God is reality.

And no, it is not really out there is the books, because they are the incorrect way of doing, You have the correct methodology for what reality really is and that is God.
As long as you can't go metacognitive on that, you will get that all other methodologies are wrong for how reality really works. They joke is that the rest of us still can do it and we are all a part of the everyday world.
You do objective, intersubjective and subjective false different that the in effect relativists do, yet we still both as absolutists and relativists do it differently.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Firedragon, two things according to advaita if they be of any help.
Vyavaharika Satya (Pramatic Reality): What we see in the world. That is an illusion of sorts, since it is superficial, not that it does not exist.
Paramarthika Satya (Absolute Reality): That of physical energy and force fields, which makes up the 'Pragmatic Reality'. Like the atoms in what seems to be your finger.