Vedic and Hinduism (ritual, reject, Earth, tradition, evolution)

[Hema]

I understand what you mean but at the same time, they are all the same one God. Today, I received a 2007 calendar with a picture of Shri Krishna speaking to Arjuna during Kurukshetra. I suppose that was when he revealed his universal form. The picture was one of Vishnu with many heads- amongst which was Shiva, Brahma, Hanuman etc. His arms had Deities like Saraswati etc. within them. The picture is so beautiful.

[Paraprakrti]

This is advaita philosophy, which is condemned by Sri Krishna in Bhagavad-Gita.


Bhagavad-Gita 7.23:

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet."

Here is made a clear distinction between the Supreme Lord and demigods. It is elsewhere explained that Brahma and Siva are representatives of the Lord in the matter of creation and destruction, respectively, but the idea that they are each worthy of the title, "Supreme Being" is unfounded.

[Paraprakrti]

Also...

The universal form is temporary, whereas the four-handed Narayan and two-handed Krsna are not.

[Seyorni]

I think you may be leaning too heavily on a particular interpretation of a particular excerpt from a particularly long epic poem, Paraprakrti.

The Bhagavad gita is the "Hindu Bible" by approbation only. It contains such a succinct synopsis of several Hindu philosophies that everyone prefers it over the convoluted muddle that comprises the real Hindu Canon (Vedas).

The Gita comprises sections 25-42 (of 124 total), of the 6th Book (of 18 total) of an extroardinarily long Sanskrit Epic.
Everyone knows the Gita is not Canon (Shruti). The Gita is not Vedic. It is not even a Purana.

The Gita is not internally concordant, so leaves lots of room for varient foci and interpretations. Of course, Hinduism itself is not doctrinely consistent, but one of its crowning achievements is the acceptance of varient philosophies as legitimate spiritual paths.

When you assert that the doctrine of Unity, advaita, is condemned, you denigrate one of the hallmarks of the Hindu tradition and give the false impression that advaita is not a core concept in many of the Indian philosophies.

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

I think you may be leaning too heavily on a particular interpretation of a particular excerpt from a particularly long epic poem, Paraprakrti.

The Bhagavad gita is the "Hindu Bible" by approbation only. It contains such a succinct synopsis of several Hindu philosophies that everyone prefers it over the convoluted muddle that comprises the real Hindu Canon (Vedas).

The Gita comprises sections 25-42 (of 124 total), of the 6th Book (of 18 total) of an extroardinarily long Sanskrit Epic.
Everyone knows the Gita is not Canon (Shruti). The Gita is not Vedic. It is not even a Purana.

The Gita is not internally concordant, so leaves lots of room for varient foci and interpretations. Of course, Hinduism itself is not doctrinely consistent, but one of its crowning achievements is the acceptance of varient philosophies as legitimate spiritual paths.

When you assert that the doctrine of Unity, advaita, is condemned, you denigrate one of the hallmarks of the Hindu tradition and give the false impression that advaita is not a core concept in many of the Indian philosophies.

Whatever percentage Bhagavad-Gita makes up for the whole has no bearing on it's significance. Immediately we can understand from the authority of Sri Krsna that there is a clear distinction between demigod worship and Supreme God worship.

There are three levels of understanding Paratattva (supreme absolute truth). The first is the impersonal Brahman conception. And it is in this understanding that one adheres to the advaita philosophy. Beyond the basic Brahman understanding is Paramatma and Bhagavan. ~ Although all three of these are on the same supreme absolute platform, a distinction remains in those individuals who understand them. For example, one who understands Brahman does not necessarily understand Paramatma or Bhagavan; one who understands Paramatma also understands Brahman, but not necessarily Bhagavan; but one who understands Bhagavan automatically understands Brahman and Paramatma. It is not possible to reason away Bhagavan as the impersonalists do. They only commit offenses by explaining Krishna as having a temporary body. God does not take a temporary, material body. In Sanskrit this is called achyuta, or infallible. We fall down into this material nature of temporal forms, but God never falls. His body is Sat-chit-ananda. That is, "Isvarah Paramah Krsnah Sac-cit-ananda vigraha". Also, Krishna explains in Bhagavad-Gita that He is manifest by His Yogamaya potency, which is different from the mahamaya potency of material nature. In one sense all energies of God are one, but comparatively they are distinct. The same relationship exists between God and His energies. Although the energy and the Energetic are nondifferent from each other, there always remains a distinction. One is the controller and the other is the controlled. This is neither advaita nor dvaita philosophy. It is dvaitadvaita, or as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu put it, "achintya bheda bheda tattva" ~ Inconceivably one and different/many, simultaneously.

[vandervalley]

I thought a lot of Hinduism's teachingscome from Buddhism. One example is the cycle of rebirth and death. And since Buddhism existed long before Hinduism; is it fair to say that Hinduism is influenced a lot by Buddha's teaching?

[Random]

Originally Posted by vandervalley

I thought a lot of Hinduism's teachingscome from Buddhism. One example is the cycle of rebirth and death. And since Buddhism existed long before Hinduism; is it fair to say that Hinduism is influenced a lot by Buddha's teaching?

Absolutely not. It is the other way around: Hinduism predates Buddhism by @ least 3000 years. Buddha is to Hinduism what Christ was to Judaism.

[vandervalley]

So may I ask what is the status of Buddhas in Hinduism?
Above God/Gods or below?

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by vandervalley

So may I ask what is the status of Buddhas in Hinduism?
Above God/Gods or below?

Many of us consider Buddhism to be a sect or even an orthodox branch of Hinduism. (The same may be said of Jainism, as well).
Buddha was Hindu (whatever that means) and The philosopies of the various Buddhist subdivisions fall easily within the Hindu world-view.

Buddhists and Jains, naturally, prefer to see themselves as unique religions unto themselves, and this is fine, of course.

[vandervalley]

But don't buddhists believe that gods are also subjected to samsara (cycle of death and rebirth) ? So in this sense Vishnu and all Hindu gods are also subjected to samsara