Why Won't You Let me Be Hindu?

[wizanda]

To post in a DIR one has to fully identify with and declare that religion, path, philosophy. Thems be the rules.

Yeah i get that; think i get carried away reading everyone's texts, and then thinking that means i've got understanding on them...

Which isn't the same as having a religious tradition from the text; which could sometimes be wildly different.

Tho i accept the key concepts of Hinduism; find some of the different schools illogical, thus needing a qualification in the ethics of each Hindu school wouldn't suit me.

Besides everyone knows Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu

Vishnu means the sustainer; yet Shiva comes as destroyer, and renewer... Yeshua came just before the 2nd temple destruction, as a test to catch out the Raktabija.

Plus the 2nd coming is before Mahapralaya, and on a white horse, as we find in both Kalki Purana, and Revelation; in both they come to make war with the Adharmic beliefs before Satya Yuga...

Tho Vishnu in character is Kalki trying to enlighten people through doctrine; ultimately this same being brings the final destruction, and renewal of reality as Yeshua - Shiva is implied to do.

Shiva's Yantra is the star of David, thus personally see it all as Lila projected to test for demons (Viruses) in this reality.

In my opinion.

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah i get that; think i get carried away reading everyone's texts, and then thinking that means i've got understanding on them...

Which isn't the same as having a religious tradition from the text; which could sometimes be wildly different.

Tho i accept the key concepts of Hinduism; find some of the different schools illogical, thus needing a qualification in the ethics of each Hindu school wouldn't suit me.

Vishnu means the sustainer; yet Shiva comes as destroyer, and renewer... Yeshua came just before the 2nd temple destruction, as a test to catch out the Raktabija.

Plus the 2nd coming is before Mahapralaya, and on a white horse, as we find in both Kalki Purana, and Revelation; in both they come to make war with the Adharmic beliefs before Satya Yuga...

Tho Vishnu in character is Kalki trying to enlighten people through doctrine; ultimately this same being brings the final destruction, and renewal of reality as Yeshua - Shiva is implied to do.

Shiva's Yantra is the star of David, thus personally see it all as Lila projected to test for demons (Viruses) in this reality.

In my opinion.

Can't you just accept that your ideas are really "out there" and just glory in your wacky uniqueness? Instead of borrowing from other religions just work on your own unique perspective. You might just succeed in developing something far more coherent.

 

[Vinayaka]

Besides everyone knows Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu... duh!

Sorry, just a little levity to lighten the mood (a very little levity ).

Unfortunately not everyone would catch the total sarcasm.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah i get that; think i get carried away reading everyone's texts, and then thinking that means i've got understanding on them...

Which isn't the same as having a religious tradition from the text; which could sometimes be wildly different.

Tho i accept the key concepts of Hinduism; find some of the different schools illogical, thus needing a qualification in the ethics of each Hindu school wouldn't suit me.

Vishnu means the sustainer; yet Shiva comes as destroyer, and renewer... Yeshua came just before the 2nd temple destruction, as a test to catch out the Raktabija.

Plus the 2nd coming is before Mahapralaya, and on a white horse, as we find in both Kalki Purana, and Revelation; in both they come to make war with the Adharmic beliefs before Satya Yuga...

Tho Vishnu in character is Kalki trying to enlighten people through doctrine; ultimately this same being brings the final destruction, and renewal of reality as Yeshua - Shiva is implied to do.

Shiva's Yantra is the star of David, thus personally see it all as Lila projected to test for demons (Viruses) in this reality.

In my opinion.

There is just so much not Hindu in all this.

 

[wizanda]

Can't you just accept that your ideas are really "out there" and just glory in your wacky uniqueness?

Yes accept that automatically.

Instead of borrowing from other religions just work on your own unique perspective.

To me the religions state these things, and people are simplistic... Wouldn't ever borrow, it is that each within its constructs speaks of the same occurrences.

You might just succeed in developing something far more coherent.

Not really wanting to develop a new movement or belief; it is just more understanding everything put before us as a whole jigsaw puzzle.

There is just so much not Hindu in all this.

By all means, explain where you see things that are inconsistent; we can only learn from example.

Unfortunately not everyone would catch the total sarcasm.

It was recognized; just found it offensive to wrongfully cross reference religions without a clear distinct line of matching criteria, thus point out where find it doesn't fit.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

Unfortunately not everyone would catch the total sarcasm.

That makes it all the funnier. In my warped worldview, anyway.

 

[Vinayaka]

By all means, explain where you see things that are inconsistent; we can only learn from example.

I see no point in that. You've already decided you will disagree. I see no fruit at the end of some long argument. You've already demonstrated you think you know more about Hinduism than Hindus themselves do, as you've countered us repeatedly. If you could counter with an iota of humility and start asking question of Hindus, then perhaps it would go somewhere, and you'd learn something. But since 'avatars' already know everything there is to know, that would be impossible.

But as a simple example ... from the Saivite Hindu POV, the Jewish Star of David is totally unrelated to any Siva Yantra, of which there are many. Google 'Siva Yantra'.

 

[Vinayaka]

That makes it all the funnier. In my warped worldview, anyway.

Yes ... warped is an apt description ... but you're not alone by any means.

 

[YmirGF]

That makes it all the funnier. In my warped worldview, anyway.

I giggled.

 

[Jainarayan]

Tho i accept the key concepts of Hinduism; find some of the different schools illogical, thus needing a qualification in the ethics of each Hindu school wouldn't suit me.

That's all well and good. As we point out and tell just about anyone who'll listen, Hinduism isn't monolithic. There are things I don't accept as not making sense to me, and there are things about my beliefs that don't make sense to other Hindus from different schools and sampradayas. But that's OK because of the nature of Hinduism. We don't have to believe all the same things. However, there are some core tenets that just can't be discarded and still label oneself a Hindu.

Vishnu means the sustainer; yet Shiva comes as destroyer, and renewer... Yeshua came just before the 2nd temple destruction, as a test to catch out the Raktabija.

Shiva is always destroying and creating; Vishnu is always preserving what Shiva creates. The comparison of 'Yeshua' and the second temple to the activities of Shiva and Vishnu is just too outré. Moreover, I can't see what the demon whose butt Goddess Durga kicked from Hoboken NJ to Nome AK has to do with any of that.

Plus the 2nd coming is before Mahapralaya, and on a white horse, as we find in both Kalki Purana, and Revelation; in both they come to make war with the Adharmic beliefs before Satya Yuga...

Hindus don't believe in the Christian Second Coming or that the world will be destroyed per Revelation. That is not what Mahapralaya is.

Tho Vishnu in character is Kalki trying to enlighten people through doctrine; ultimately this same being brings the final destruction, and renewal of reality as Yeshua - Shiva is implied to do.

Shiva isn't implied to do anything; he simply does.

Shiva's Yantra is the star of David, thus personally see it all as Lila projected to test for demons (Viruses) in this reality.

No. Just no.

 

[wizanda]

You've already decided you will disagree.

That is so unfair, I'm continually looking at the data of religions, and trying to understand them better; tho i find religious traditions & commentaries fascinating, it is actually checking what it says that bothers me.

I always have great faith "I do not know"; learning is a noble pursuit.

Google 'Siva Yantra'.

Sorry my fault not being specific enough, Google 'Skanda Yantra'.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

However, there are some core tenets that just can't be discarded and still label oneself a Hindu.

Which core tenets would you perceive need fulfilling to be a Hindu?

Hindus don't believe in the Christian Second Coming or that the world will be destroyed per Revelation.

As saying the Kalki Purana reiterates the same or we could use the Pazand from Zoroastrianism, there are multiple religious eschatologies with similar constructs....

As for including Christian ideas, they're the ones in the snare that Shiva (Yeshua) and Kali laid to remove the blood thirsty.

Everything is about perception, i get Hindu traditions don't view these texts this way; yet for me considering they all point at the same spot on the jigsaw puzzle, it is a very good fit.

Moreover, I can't see what the demon whose butt Goddess Durga kicked from Hoboken NJ to Nome AK has to do with any of that.

OK in your Hindu view of the world, say in the Bible the things promised to remove the blood thirsty (demons) takes place; did the Deities of Hinduism do it or are they not the ultimate Source of reality?

In my opinion

 

[Vinayaka]

That is so unfair, I'm continually looking at the data of religions, and trying to understand them better; tho i find religious traditions & commentaries fascinating, it is actually checking what it says that bothers me.

I always have great faith "I do not know"; learning is a noble pursuit.

Sorry my fault not being specific enough, Google 'Skanda Yantra'.

In my opinion.

Skanda Yantra does look the same, I give you that. But it's origins, what it means, how it's used, isn't the same. In any Murugan temple, you will find a copper sheet etched with a yantra. Called the shadkonam) It hold specific meanings, unique to Saivism. A six pointed state, two concentric triangles, is just such a common geometric shape. Drawing parallels is like saying anything with the same shaped motif has similarities. So once you look beyond the shape it self, the differences come pouring in.

But I digress.

'I do not know' is in direct conflict with being an avatara. So which is it?

 

[Vinayaka]

Everything is about perception, i get Hindu traditions don't view these texts this way; yet for me considering they all point at the same spot on the jigsaw puzzle, it is a very good fit.

Hinduism is not about you. It is about a diverse multifaceted umbrella of diverse beliefs adhered to by nearly a billion people. If I want to have some sort of authoritarian view, I'll ask a Hindu.

You are not at all alone though. many universalists, including the Bahai faith see it as you do. The major difference between your belief and Baha'i, as far as I can tell, is that you've replace Baha'u'llah.

 

[Jainarayan]

Which core tenets would you perceive need fulfilling to be a Hindu?

That the Vedas are apaurusheya, not of human origin and are eternal truth. I don't necessarily like the word 'authoritative', because it smacks of laws, rules, regulations and commandments.

A few I lifted from Basics of Hinduism

1. Hindus believe in a one, all-pervasive Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, both Creator and Unmanifest Reality.
2. Hindus believe in the divinity of the four Vedas, the world's most ancient scripture, and venerate the Agamas as equally revealed. These primordial hymns are God's word and the bedrock of Sanatana Dharma, the eternal religion.
3. Hindus believe that the universe undergoes endless cycles of creation, preservation and dissolution.
4. Hindus believe in karma, the law of cause and effect by which each individual creates his own destiny by his thoughts, words and deeds.
5. Hindus believe that the soul reincarnates, evolving through many births until all karmas have been resolved, and moksha, liberation from the cycle of rebirth, is attained. Not a single soul will be deprived of this destiny.
6. Hindus believe that divine beings exist in unseen worlds and that temple worship, rituals, sacraments and personal devotionals create a communion with these devas and Gods.
7. Hindus believe that an enlightened master, or satguru, is essential to know the Transcendent Absolute, as are personal discipline, good conduct, purification, pilgrimage, self-inquiry, meditation and surrender in God.
8. Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, noninjury, in thought, word and deed.
9. Hindus believe that no religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine paths are facets of God's Light, deserving tolerance and understanding.

As saying the Kalki Purana reiterates the same or we could use the Pazand from Zoroastrianism, there are multiple religious eschatologies with similar constructs....

Cross-pollination and sharing.

As for including Christian ideas, they're the ones in the snare that Shiva (Yeshua) and Kali laid to remove the blood thirsty.

Christian ideas are not entirely or even partially evil or bloodthirsty. This equating Shiva and Jesus is something that would probably cause most Hindus to shake their heads in pity or make them completely abandon the concept of ahimsa on the person who spouts it within earshot.

Everything is about perception, i get Hindu traditions don't view these texts this way; yet for me considering they all point at the same spot on the jigsaw puzzle, it is a very good fit.

But it's not Hindu and can't be called Hindu. I can't tell you what it is, but I can tell you what it's not.

OK in your Hindu view of the world, say in the Bible the things promised to remove the blood thirsty (demons) takes place; did the Deities of Hinduism do it or are they not the ultimate Source of reality?

I don't believe in the Bible or its stories. They are filled with gratuitous blood and blood lust for its own sake. Blood that's shed in the puranas is done for the restoration of dharma, mostly metaphorical and allegorical to teach lessons. The word purana means history but I don't think that most of the stories are literally believed.

 

[wizanda]

'I do not know' is in direct conflict with being an avatara. So which is it?

Buddha said he didn't know, and was deemed an avatar of Vishnu.

Hinduism is not about you.

Didn't think it was, and didn't think it was only reserved to Hindu texts; yet is from an ocean of consciousness, where form is made manifest by Brahman, and where everything is for a reason.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

was deemed an avatar of Vishnu.

Not by everyone. Not by all Vaishnavas, and certainly not by any Shaivas. I'm on the fence about it myself. My temple does not have his murthi among the Dasavatara. Balarama is in his place.

 

[Vinayaka]

Buddha said he didn't know, and was deemed an avatar of Vishnu.

By some. Not by all. No Hindu can speak for all Hindus, as we're so diverse. I don't believe the above at all, as I don't believe in avatar as a concept. (Saivites don't as I tried to explain before, but I don't think you read it.) But if no Hindu can speak for all Hindus (we're all quite happy with that diversity) certainly a non-Hindu universalist Abrahamic leaning person can't. Admittedly, your one saving grace here is your tag line 'in my opinion'. Yet the tone is still authoritarian as heck.

I don't believe Buddha was an avatar, but I do believe a great teacher named Buddha existed. I lean towards Christ not existing at all.

But you're free to set your own course, to be your own religion. Not recommended by the wise, because there are tried and true paths, that have passed the tests of time many times over. But nobody can stop you. You're free to call yourself a Hindu. The problem in the thread wasn't so much that you are considered non-Hindu, but more about posting the non-Hindu concepts. Again, I don't see why you seem to care so much about what other people think of you. Enlightened sages just laugh when someone disagrees with them.

 

[Ubon]

you ssy Abrahamic Religions should be more Hindu in structure.
The arrogance of that is alarming.

They could well say the same, stop worshipping monkey gods and men with elephant heads, yet they are not telling you how to worship.

what they are doing is responding to your critical beliefs that they should follow and believe as you do, and you attack their beliefs then get defensive when they respond to you.

 

[wizanda]

you ssy Abrahamic Religions should be more Hindu in structure.
The arrogance of that is alarming.

There are numerous scholars who are recognizing that in the first temple period of Judaism, based on what we find in the text, they did have a more Hindu structuring...

Where we find One God Most High, and the council of Elohim...

That isn't arrogance, that is advanced knowledge of the text to know where evidence suggests this.

***Edited out ***

It is impolite to speak about someone in front of them, and then have the audacity to go on about arrogance.

Plus then to call someone's experiences delusional, and then to claim some superiority in humility is beyond shocking.
[GALLERY=media, 7635][/GALLERY]
In my opinion.