Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Not always, but this has been the general response I've encountered and was taught.Thats your opinion. And opinions arent exactly reliable information, are they?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The appropriation of non-Dharmic figures into Hinduism?
- Thread starter Gaura Priya
- Start date
But how can one explain the different schools: Advaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Visishthadvaita, Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta... ? Surely not all of these could have been revealed to the acharyas, especially when some of them are diametrically opposed.
Edit: I just saw the preceding posts on this, but I maintain that in these cases, interpretations are opinions.
Last edited:
Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.
Scripture is a part of Hinduism, I agree, but it doesn't represent, contain, or cover the various ideologies and teachings that the term "Hinduism" encompasses.
I spoke from my personal experience as a Tamil Hindu. Its not a perspective that many foreigners interested in Hinduism are familiar with. And I think its pretty clear to everyone that Hinduism varies greatly between regions, ethnic groups, and castes.
Back to the original question, yes there is a difference between non-dharmic Indian gods versus non-dharmic foreign gods, I wish I had clarified that more earlier.
On a side note, it's a little inaccurate for this forum to categorize Hinduism as a purely a Dharmic Religion, when it is both Dharmic and an Indigenous religion.
Thats your opinion. And opinions arent exactly reliable information, are they?
Namste Guptaji
Why do you think it is a personal opinion? Do you mean to say that sanatana dharma and vaidic dharma are two different things?
Advaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Visishthadvaita, Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Smarta... All these schools can show evidence from Veda that their perspective is true. That is the nature of Veda.
It may appear weird to some. But it is about layered knowledge/teaching. One who is a firm believer of the 'body' as 'me' has to have different method and philosophy compared to another seeker who sees Shiva alone everywhere and at all times. Hinduism is totally built on Guru Parampara-s, which suit the needs of different experience levels of seekers.
One can show from Veda verses that suggest advaita or dvaita or anything in between. It is not that there is no opinion but a seeker is basically his opnions only and he/she will need medicine as per his opinion to relinquish those opinions.
I think we're on the same page. I wasn't clear by giving the impression that one or the other has to be true, and the others false. I can understand that all of those are within the Vedas. Maybe "opinions" isn't the right word we're all using. Maybe it's "vision" and "interpretation"... everyone having their "vision" of what they take away from the Vedas and the what the rishis perceived. I'm no theologian, but going back to the post "Not in Hinduism", the beauty is that Hinduism has room for all these "visions", "interpretations", "opinions".
Instead of opinion or vision i will use a phrase i like immensely. It is from Yoga Vasista and it means: Whatever is there in consciousness is true since consciousness is true.
If my consciousness has some pictures, then those are phenomenally true for me. My path and my ishta devata should satisfy those pictures, at least initially. Then it is Guru's job to steer the course.
That is how i see it. Personal opinion again.
It makes sense, and I just thought of something. We see only a cross-section, or bits and pieces of "reality". Use achintya bhedabheda as an example. As the name says, it's inconceivable. We just can't conceive of all these "different" thoughts, opinions, interpretations as probably being just one. We can't see it all.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend GP,
Adharmic is when one is not in tune with the laws of existence where the MIND takes precedence over no-mind but then Karma is a great leveller and one finally follows the laws consciously.
So there are no non-dharmic figures regards to dharma that is eternal. At best many could be taking a detour to eventually follow dharma at some point.
Love & rgds
Kindly speak of SANATN DHARMA and dharma is laws of existence which every being is following either consciously or unconsciously and so ever being is dharmic.
Adharmic is when one is not in tune with the laws of existence where the MIND takes precedence over no-mind but then Karma is a great leveller and one finally follows the laws consciously.
So there are no non-dharmic figures regards to dharma that is eternal. At best many could be taking a detour to eventually follow dharma at some point.
Love & rgds
The Buddha rejected the Vedas because they became mindlessly ritualistic.
Buddhism and Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buddha, Vedas and the Brahmana culture
Even Sri Krishna in B.G. 2.42-43 says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this." I think He was paving the way for setting the Vedas aside as ritualistic manuals.
Buddhism and Its Vedic Connections
Buddha, Vedas and the Brahmana culture
Even Sri Krishna in B.G. 2.42-43 says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this." I think He was paving the way for setting the Vedas aside as ritualistic manuals.
Buddhism and Its Vedic Connections
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend TbtL,
Kindly understand that:
Personal understanding is that Gautam did or cannot reject the vedas as his understanding evolved fom the same background. Evolution happens whenever a change is reuired for the better. Read and understand this:
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com
Gautama changed the course which though mostly disliked by ritual practicing people and the umbrella of Santan Dharma widened under Gautama.
Love & Rgds
Kindly understand that:
is not the same as:
Firstly Shall use the label Gautama and not *Buddha* as Gautama was the person and *Buddha* is a state where *n* numbers reached.
Personal understanding is that Gautam did or cannot reject the vedas as his understanding evolved fom the same background. Evolution happens whenever a change is reuired for the better. Read and understand this:
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com
Gautama changed the course which though mostly disliked by ritual practicing people and the umbrella of Santan Dharma widened under Gautama.
Love & Rgds
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Great stuff this should be it's own thread.
I disagree that they are not the same, I believe they are, just from a different angle. At the time, the people were not following the Vedas as they should have been followed. It doesn't mean they are untrue and without merit. But why cling to something that is not being followed the way it should be?
Yes, I understand what Buddha means. But in deference to Buddhists' beliefs, I use that term.
Yes, I understand what Buddha means. But in deference to Buddhists' beliefs, I use that term.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend TbtL,
Those who followed it were not doing so in spirit and that was leading to degenration which Gautama pointed to and not reject the VEDAS. VEDAS cannot be rejected but surely expanded and Gautama did that. [personal understanding]
Love & rgds
who does this *they* refer? VEDAS? No they are pointers to THAT.
Those who followed it were not doing so in spirit and that was leading to degenration which Gautama pointed to and not reject the VEDAS. VEDAS cannot be rejected but surely expanded and Gautama did that. [personal understanding]
Love & rgds
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
thats what i have been taught as well.
I agree with that.
Well from what ive learned by reading the English Translations of Veda Samhita (not complete yet), I can understand why Buddha would have rejected the Vedas (as taught in his time).
What ive found is that Vedas actually do not talk of God that often.
It is more concerned with human life, political, social ect.
And if you translate it in the ways of Sayana and other Puranics then it does Talk of God alot. And if you translate as per Nirukta/Nigantu and Panini then there is vary little mention of God.
I don't think the Vedas talk about God at all, all depends on translations.