Why are we over-complicating Hinduism?

Valjean said:

Hinduism can be pantheistic, polytheistic, panentheistic, monotheistic or atheistic. It can even be all of these, depending on what level you're talking about.

Hinduism loves complicated. It loves breaking things down into innumerable categories with innumerable features. If anything, it's generally simplified.

Click to expand...

What if the likes of Virochana and Paundraka also voice such arguments to state their claims directly contradicting the Vedas and Srimad Bhagavatham !

Aupmanyav said:

He/She does not have full understanding of Hinduism, that is why he/she has asked these questions.

Click to expand...

Which is very obvious. Precisely why I answered. It is also obvious that he is looking for One Source but he cannot see it in Hinduism because he has not studied it, just "looked" culturally from outside.
Therefore, the focus was on what will benefit the OP to the maximum, showing the One Brahman' that became BramhA VishNu Mahesh and Devi exactly what he needs out of Hinduism. He does not need the rest. I was replying to the OP, not writing an essay to please everyone, especially atheists.

My reply to him/her is the same as to you. Hinduism ranges from atheism to polytheism, and Brahman can be a considered a God or not considered a God. All permutations and combinations are possible in Hinduism. Dvaita, Dvaita-Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Suddhadvaita, Bhedabhedadvaita, Acintya Bhedabheda or Gaudapada's and Sankara's Advaita. No one view holds for all of Hinduism except for the concept of 'dharma'. All the rest is open to personal views.

Click to expand...

So it seems you did not read this :

ameyAtmA said:

MahA-NArAyaNa Upanishad is one among many that describe the transcendental Supreme Reality in such a way that it makes a single Source undeniable, and makes any form-formlessness argument moot, any argument to call the Supreme Reality NArAyaNa or SadAshiv or Rudra or anything else moot, and make the Person-Impersonal, nirvishesha Vs infinite kalyAN guNa argument moot..

Click to expand...

It is clear you do not know what I am , and cannot presume that I am any <fill in the blank>theist or presume that I am quoting from A C Bhaktivedanta PrabhupAd (like you thought a few months ago) becs I don't. Nor was the post showing just monotheism, rather, it was showing One Brahman' as the Ultimate Reality.

I had written more. Had I not deleted it (thanks to a sarcastic thread that sprung up elsewhere on RF, calling it fairy tales and childishness - the usual story), you would have no need to explain all this.

I had said that it is possible to see the reality as a spectrum, with Dvaita on one end and Keval-advaita on the other. I find no contradiction between Dvaita, VishishTAdvaita, all VaishNav flavors of (achintya bhedAbhed, dvaitAdvaita, shuddhAdvaita,) and kevalAdvaita on the far end. They are gradations / aspects / angles of the kaleidoscopic truth.
If in KRshNa avatar, PrabhU can be Rama for Hanuman and TulsiDas, He is too generous and allows for all angles - Henotheism, Polytheism (to those who look on surface only), Monotheism, Monism, even Monolatry.

At the same time PrabhU wants people to dive deeper, contemplate. not simply say "anything goes"
-------
One Brahman is a common thread to the mainstream Hinduism.

When someone says they find the truth in Sikhism, I am simply showing the same truth in their own Hinduism - One Brahman.

It appears that instead of allowing for relevant knowledge to coexist, someone wants to police and reduce the DIR to this:

"Hi Hello How are you?"
"Happy <festival name>"
"How do you make ghee lamps / dhoop " ?
"Do you have an Ekadashi calendar?"
"What happened to Pandavas?"
etc.

Please carry on.
Happy Hinduism.

ameyAtmA said:

One Brahman' as the Ultimate Reality.

If in KRshNa avatar, PrabhU can be Rama for Hanuman and TulsiDas, He is too generous and allows for all angles - Henotheism, Polytheism (to those who look on surface only), Monotheism, Monism, even Monolatry.

At the same time PrabhU wants people to dive deeper, contemplate. not simply say "anything goes".

Click to expand...

Nice write-up. We concur on one thing. One reality. After that differences crop up. You anthromorphise that reality, calling it Prabhu, Narayana (since you are a Vaishnav). I am Prabhu. There is no other Prabhu. I am Rama and Krishna. I am also the stone under the water of Mother Ganges.
Did you dive deep in the water of Mother Ganges? If you had, you might have seen me there.

Vinayaka said:

I don't see that we're over-complicating it purposefully, but rather that it simply is incredibly diverse. If anything, some folks tend to oversimplify it, believing their particular POV or sect/sampradaya is representative of all of Hinduism.

Click to expand...

Valjean said:

Hinduism can be pantheistic, polytheistic, panentheistic, monotheistic or atheistic. It can even be all of these, simultaneously, depending on what level you're talking about.

Hinduism loves complicated. It loves breaking things down into innumerable categories with innumerable features. If anything, it's generally simplified.

Click to expand...

Hinduism is no doubt incredibly diverse. But for most Hindus all diversity reflects many faces of one diamond only. I see a few people here who discount that fact.

.

Aupmanyav said:

You anthromorphise that reality, calling it Prabhu, Narayana (since you are a Vaishnav).

Click to expand...

Again, more assumptions.
The TurIya is called PrabhU (Lord) in the upanishads (see MAnDukya), but is the infinite universal PrabhU, not an individual PrabhU.

This is what I said:

If in KRshNa avatar, PrabhU can be Rama for Hanuman and TulsiDas..

Click to expand...

This means the Highest Brahman, when on earth in the form of KRshNa, appeared as Shri Rama for Hanuman. There is no word Narayana in the sentence, and this is itihAs (history). iti + hAs = Thus it happened.

As for being VaishNav, VishNu, SadAshiv, TrimUrti-conscious DattAtreya are all ArAdhya (worshipable), but I do not understand why it bothers you so much that you have to intervene and object to every theistic conversation..

I am Prabhu. There is no other Prabhu. I am Rama and Krishna. I am also the stone under the water of Mother Ganges.

Click to expand...

I am the mystical Nara-NArAyaN, where the Nara aspect is grateful to the Divine who is always with Nara., while simultaneously being the One. When in deep nirvikalpa samAdhI there is only one, Brahman,, but in general, existence as Two-in-One, Nara-NArAyaN.

Hanuman knows He is Brahman;, yet claims to be devotee of Shri Rama
The 4 bramhavAdi KumAr know they are Brahman, but remain individuals , devoted to their IshTadev and uplifting beings on earth.

Why insist on making Brahman as Rama, Krishna or Narayana or Rudra or whatever you want it to be? Let it remain like what it is, not that it cares for what you think of it. You yourself are that (Tat twam asi, Ayamatma Brahma). Highest Brahman? What is the lowest Brahman? You are introducing categories where there are none. What will Brahman lord over when there is nothing other than it? Whom to worship when you are yourself it?
Yeah, your way is more complicated than mine. Mine is a straight-forward way.