Why Hinduism

[Jainarayan]

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?

You might be thinking of the references to the “authority” of the Vedas? I don’t like the word authority because they’re not laws or commandments. They’re hymns, mantras, poetry, philosophy and such.

They’re said to be apaurusheya... lit. “Not of man”. So yeah, I guess divinely inspired is a good description. But no single person received them or even “heard” them. They were transcendentally perceived by the rishis. We say there were 7 rishis, the Saptarishi but I think there were many of them over the centuries.

Other scriptures like the Itihasa (collectively the Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata) are next in importance, but while virtually all Hindus at least pay lip service to the divinity of the Vedas, including the Upanishads, not all sects find the Itihasa and Puranas relevant.

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?

I personally think he has a basis in a historical person. There’s evidence for things that are written and described.

I’d say he’s more God than man, but yes he’s both. He had very human interactions yet his family and friends, and he, were well aware of his divinity. Such that Queen Gandhari scolded and cursed him that he would die a human death, as her sons did in the war. She scolded him for not using his divine powers to stop the war.

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 can see that happening. Many Hindus are more than happy to absorb other deities and divinities, and even deify notable person. I’m a traditionalist in that regard and less willing to add to the pantheon unless there some compelling reason.

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.

From my POV, for sure. I’m perfectly happy to share. I don’t mind “our” deities being adopted or appropriated as long as it’s done with reverent intents. I’ve heard of Wiccans adopting Shiva and Devi as their God and Goddess. Go figure. There’s nothing I know of in our scriptures prohibiting that.

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?

I think that’s where the idea of incarnation comes in. A divinity taking on a mortal body. In the Rāmāyana, Vishnu decides to be born as a human. There’s a job needs doing and he’s the only one who can do it. But he can’t do it as God, and only as he’s growing into adulthood and taking on his challenges does he begin to remember who he really is, and begin to invoke his divinity. As a child and adolescent he thinks he just another royal prince.

I try not to think too hard about the paradoxes. We say it’s leela, “God’s play”.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

Catholics I know here just ignore their leaders on it. In other words, they can think for themselves. Where I really noticed it was in Dominican Republic at my son's destination wedding. People were having 10 or more children, the mothers were at risk health wise, and kids were at near starvation levels.

As usual, I'm much more concerned about action that words. They could do that place and it's people a real humane service by providing a truckload of free condoms, free vasectomies and tubal ligations, and more. But I don't see that happening any time soon. It's an indirect genocide for no logical reason. Mauritius was far different because lawmakers and secular education, like it is here, at least offered the alternative. Even tourists in DR had trouble finding condoms.

 

[Vinayaka]

You might be thinking of the references to the “authority” of the Vedas? I don’t like the word authority because they’re not laws or commandments. They’re hymns, mantras, poetry, philosophy and such.

They’re said to be apaurusheya... lit. “Not of man”. So yeah, I guess divinely inspired is a good description. But no single person received them or even “heard” them. They were transcendentally perceived by the rishis. We say there were 7 rishis, the Saptarishi but I think there were many of them over the centuries.

Other scriptures like the Itihasa (collectively the Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata) are next in importance, but while virtually all Hindus at least pay lip service to the divinity of the Vedas, including the Upanishads, not all sects find the Itihasa and Puranas relevant.



I personally think he has a basis in a historical person. There’s evidence for things that are written and described.

I’d say he’s more God than man, but yes he’s both. He had very human interactions yet his family and friends, and he, were well aware of his divinity. Such that Queen Gandhari scolded and cursed him that he would die a human death, as her sons did in the war. She scolded him for not using his divine powers to stop the war.



I can see that happening. Many Hindus are more than happy to absorb other deities and divinities, and even deify notable person. I’m a traditionalist in that regard and less willing to add to the pantheon unless there some compelling reason.



From my POV, for sure. I’m perfectly happy to share. I don’t mind “our” deities being adopted or appropriated as long as it’s done with reverent intents. I’ve heard of Wiccans adopting Shiva and Devi as their God and Goddess. Go figure. There’s nothing I know of in our scriptures prohibiting that.



I think that’s where the idea of incarnation comes in. A divinity taking on a mortal body. In the Rāmāyana, Vishnu decides to be born as a human. There’s a job needs doing and he’s the only one who can do it. But he can’t do it as God, and only as he’s growing into adulthood and taking on his challenges does he begin to remember who he really is, and begin to invoke his divinity. As a child and adolescent he thinks he just another royal prince.

I try not to think too hard about the paradoxes. We say it’s leela, “God’s play”.

I also think both Rama and Krishna may have had origins in real people, with some truly overloaded exaggeration adding to the story, thus changing it to part myth. There are rumours about Ayyappan starting that way, and he's not found in earlier stuff. BAPS is well into their way on deifying their founder, Swaminarayan, as He's the central deity/murthy in their temples. The recent fad for Shirdi Sai parallels this. Even 20 years back it was rare to have a Shirdi Sai statue. Now it seems like He's everywhere. The Calgary Murugan temple Maha Kumbabhishekahm I went to had a statue of Him, right there with Hanuman and Ganesha. Some liberal Hindus in India have Christ statues right there too.

So maybe it's just a process, and people sort of evolve into deities over a long period of time. Not my tradition at all, but it is there. Being the traditionalist I am, I prefer the simple old days. It's less complicated, and I can focus on one god far more easily. To me it would be like having 10 different radio stations on the same wavelength. Just who are you listening to?

 

[Jainarayan]

I also think both Rama and Krishna may have had origins in real people, with some truly overloaded exaggeration adding to the story, thus changing it to part myth. There are rumours about Ayyappan starting that way, and he's not found in earlier stuff. BAPS is well into their way on deifying their founder, Swaminarayan, as He's the central deity/murthy in their temples. The recent fad for Shirdi Sai parallels this. Even 20 years back it was rare to have a Shirdi Sai statue. Now it seems like He's everywhere. The Calgary Murugan temple Maha Kumbabhishekahm I went to had a statue of Him, right there with Hanuman and Ganesha. Some liberal Hindus in India have Christ statues right there too.

So maybe it's just a process, and people sort of evolve into deities over a long period of time. Not my tradition at all, but it is there. Being the traditionalist I am, I prefer the simple old days. It's less complicated, and I can focus on one god far more easily. To me it would be like having 10 different radio stations on the same wavelength. Just who are you listening to?

Yes to all that. You know my confusion back in the day over it all

I just read that Santoshi Mata was created by Bollywood. She has since become quite popular and has shrines and temples. Santoshi Mata - Wikipedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes to all that. You know my confusion back in the day over it all

I just read that Santoshi Mata was created by Bollywood. She has since become quite popular and has shrines and temples. Santoshi Mata - Wikipedia

One of the most common statues in India is of Gandhi ... archeologists might think he was a God, 2000 years from now, when digging. it's one of the reasons I like the Lingam, Hanuman, or Ganesha. They're all not so anthropomorphic. Even Nataraja is less so. The Lingam especially didn't start out as some person.

We had a nice 10th day of Tiruvembavai this morning at 5:30 Ardra Abhishekham ... the full abhishekham, a parade, and more. Have you ever seen the fake rain abhishekham? I like that one especially. It's the largest puja of the year at Tillai.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Catholics I know here just ignore their leaders on it. In other words, they can think for themselves. Where I really noticed it was in Dominican Republic at my son's destination wedding. People were having 10 or more children, the mothers were at risk health wise, and kids were at near starvation levels.

As usual, I'm much more concerned about action that words. They could do that place and it's people a real humane service by providing a truckload of free condoms, free vasectomies and tubal ligations, and more. But I don't see that happening any time soon. It's an indirect genocide for no logical reason. Mauritius was far different because lawmakers and secular education, like it is here, at least offered the alternative. Even tourists in DR had trouble finding condoms.

It is always an option to either follow or disregard the advice given by a church or religious organisation. I've done that in the past with the Christian Church. If we are following that advice, that doesn't indicate someone isn't thinking for themselves. It is a conscious choice to either follow or reject the advice given.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is always an option to either follow or disregard the advice given by a church or religious organisation. I've done that in the past with the Christian Church. If we are following that advice, that doesn't indicate someone isn't thinking for themselves. It is a conscious choice to either follow or reject the advice given.

I don't believe some people view it as an option, though. You and I might, but there are those who don't. We can't always assume everyone in the group has intelligence. I made that false assumption far too often while teaching.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In India, Catholic clergy are told not to proselytize as that is forbidden under Indian law.

Let me correct you here. Choice of religion is not forbidden in India. It is a fundamental right according to Indian Constitution. But yes, in various states, there are various laws which have to be followed. For example, if a person has come to India as a tourist, then he is not supposed to indulge in proselytization.

God takes such mysterious forms (appearing as the Guru) in order to help the suffering humanity to move on to a next stage.

Well, you are not a Hindu.

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.

In that case, they cannot claim to be Hindus. They will have become Bahais. I will have no problem with such people. Choice of religion as per Hinduism too is a right.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Why bhagawath purana and mahabarat? I dont understand really.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. taking on his challenges does he begin to remember who he really is, and begin to invoke his divinity. As a child and adolescent he thinks he just another royal prince.

Incorrect, Jai. Krishna, omniscient, omniotent, always knew what he was, and what he was doing even as an infant. Did he not kill Pootana? Did he not show Mother Yashoda all three worlds in his mouth? Learn your scriptures through a strong atheist.

"I try not to think too hard about the paradoxes. We say it’s leela, “God’s play”."
There are no paradoxes. As you said it is leela, “God’s play”.

I just read that Santoshi Mata was created by Bollywood. She has since become quite popular and has shrines and temples. Santoshi Mata - Wikipedia

Mother Santoshi was not created by Bollywood. She is a Goddess of the Gujarati people, just like Bahuchara Mata, the Goddess partial to LGBTQ. Of course, the film was a block-buster in its time just as Ramayana and Mahabharata serials were on TV.

Why bhagawath purana and mahabarat? I dont understand really.

Mahabharata and Gita are a part of Bhagawat Purana. Bhagawat Purana best illustrates the Hindu ethos though it is a Vaishnava scripture. It is respected by all Hindus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why bhagawath purana and mahabarat? I dont understand really.

Because they contain explicit narrations of Krishna. For example:

The earliest text containing detailed descriptions of Krishna as a personality is the epic Mahabharata, which depicts Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu. Krishna is central to many of the main stories of the epic. The eighteen chapters of the sixth book (Bhishma Parva) of the epic that constitute the Bhagavad Gita contain the advice of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield. The Harivamsa, a later appendix to the Mahabharata contains a detailed version of Krishna's childhood and youth.

Krishna - Wikipedia

Consisting of 90 chapters,the tenth canto continues the dialogue between Sukadeva Gosvami and Pariksit on the banks of the Ganges river. Notable additional layers of dialogue all involve the lila (divine play) of the supreme and transcendental Krishna avatar. Thus focusing on the appearance and pastimes of Krishna, topics covered include the:

• Imprisonment of Krishna's parents (Vasudeva and Devaki), the murder of His siblings, and attempted murder of baby Krishna by King Kamsa
• Fostering of Krishna and Balarama by Nanda and Yashoda (Gopas, a tribe of cowherds); Yashoda saw the universal form in boy-Krishna's mouth
• Attempts on baby and boy-Krishna's life by various demons, mostly sent by Kamsa (e.g. Putana,Trnavarta, Aghasura, Pralamba, Kesi, etc.)

Bhagavata Purana - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Because they contain explicit narrations of Krishna. For example:

The earliest text containing detailed descriptions of Krishna as a personality is the epic Mahabharata, which depicts Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu. Krishna is central to many of the main stories of the epic. The eighteen chapters of the sixth book (Bhishma Parva) of the epic that constitute the Bhagavad Gita contain the advice of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield. The Harivamsa, a later appendix to the Mahabharata contains a detailed version of Krishna's childhood and youth.

Krishna - Wikipedia

Consisting of 90 chapters,the tenth canto continues the dialogue between Sukadeva Gosvami and Pariksit on the banks of the Ganges river. Notable additional layers of dialogue all involve the lila (divine play) of the supreme and transcendental Krishna avatar. Thus focusing on the appearance and pastimes of Krishna, topics covered include the:

• Imprisonment of Krishna's parents (Vasudeva and Devaki), the murder of His siblings, and attempted murder of baby Krishna by King Kamsa
• Fostering of Krishna and Balarama by Nanda and Yashoda (Gopas, a tribe of cowherds); Yashoda saw the universal form in boy-Krishna's mouth
• Attempts on baby and boy-Krishna's life by various demons, mostly sent by Kamsa (e.g. Putana,Trnavarta, Aghasura, Pralamba, Kesi, etc.)

Bhagavata Purana - Wikipedia

I asked you why you pick the baghvath purana and mahabarat. Do you pick it because of Krishna? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Dawnofhope]

In that case, they cannot claim to be Hindus. They will have become Bahais. I will have no problem with such people. Choice of religion as per Hinduism too is a right.

As I see it, it is really not up to you to decide how another defines their faith. The label I am personally most comfortable for myself is 'Baha'i'. I have come across at least one Hindu who has assimilated the Baha'i 'Deity' Baha'u'llah while not changing any of their Hindu beliefs including those that would contradict the Baha'i Teachings. I see all sorts of problems with that personally but what can I do. I see you misrepresenting my beliefs all the time. All I can do is provide the information that would assist you present a more accurate picture.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I asked you why you pick the baghvath purana and mahabarat. Do you pick it because of Krishna? Is that what you're saying?

Had I not answered your question in the first sentence of my last post to you?

 

[firedragon]

Had I not answered your question in the first sentence of my last post to you?

Oh you had?

Because they contain explicit narrations of Krishna. For example:

Is that the answer?

Okay fine. I was just clarifying. You are not gonna lose more than a few seconds to say "yes" or "no". So there is no necessity of asking a "had i not question" unless you lost your cool at a simple question.

Anyway, basically what you have said in that case is that you cherry pick what suits your agenda from the hindu scripture.

Peace.

 

[Vinayaka]

In that case, they cannot claim to be Hindus. They will have become Bahais. I will have no problem with such people. Choice of religion as per Hinduism too is a right.

As I've said before, anybody can say whatever they want. They can say"I'm a Hindu, a Muslim, an Christian, and a Buddhist." Whether or not other people will believe them is another matter. IMO, it's not at all about what people say, it's about how they act.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh you had?



Is that the answer?

Okay fine. I was just clarifying. You are not gonna lose more than a few seconds to say "yes" or "no". So there is no necessity of asking a "had i not question" unless you lost your cool at a simple question.

Anyway, basically what you have said in that case is that you cherry pick what suits your agenda from the hindu scripture.

Peace.

Maybe I do cherry pick to suit my agenda and that is one way of viewing it. Alternatively it seems like a logical starting point for Baha'is (who is unfamiliar with Hinduism) who believes Krishna is a Manifestation of God to consider what the Hindu scriptures have to say about Krishna.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe I do cherry pick to suit my agenda and that is one way of viewing it. Alternatively it seems like a logical starting point for Baha'is (who is unfamiliar with Hinduism) who believe Krishna is a Manifestation of God to consider what the Hindu scriptures have to say about Krishna.

I have no problem with your methodology. Its your prerogative.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I see it, it is really not up to you to decide how another defines their faith.

In internet discussions, we always give our own views. I cannot claim to be speaking for you.

 

[firedragon]

I would like to thank my Hindu brothers and if anyone is not Hindu but has so much knowledge for whatever reason, for giving some great insights. Honestly, i have changed a lot of my perceptions after interacting with you because there is one area i lack a lot in, and i have started a little new path because of you.

Thanks a load. I leaned a hell of a lot.