Hindu: The fallacy of 'Hinduism'

[Riverwolf]

No and No. Absolutely not! I do not accept other forms of Hinduism as valid. The true Hinduism is Santana Dharma of Yogic/Vedantic Hinduism. True Hinduism is just pure spirituality. Puranic Hinduism, Brahmanical Hinduism, and Folk Hinduism are not valid. They are false Hinduism. Now before Hindus start to hurl abuses at me for being "intolerant" I would like to remind them that Jews, Muslims and Christians think the same about each others religion, despite the fact that they all accept the authority of Abraham. Abrahamic religions are not religious relativists, they all recognize that only their religion is the truest, and that is why they are adherent of it. Why would you be an adherent of any religion, if you recognized other religions as true as well?

Because religions are paths, not statements of reality.

BTW, many Jews, Christians, and Muslims do have the same pluralist attitude as the rest of us. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

 

[Surya Deva]

This is, in my opinion, a manufactured issue. Hinduism is based on Vedas, regardless of its stripe. Why make this an issue?

This ignores the complexities of Hinduism, where the Vedas play a rather superficial role in most Hindu religions. In Shiavism and Shaktism for example, the agamas are considered more important, some Shivaivists even reject the Vedas.

 

[Surya Deva]

Because religions are paths, not statements of reality.

BTW, many Jews, Christians, and Muslims do have the same pluralist attitude as the rest of us. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I disagree, many Jews, Christians and Muslims are not pluralists. I have rarely ever met a a Muslim who regards any other religion other than Islam as true, it is the official position of their own religion the Quran is the last and most perfect revelation and Mohammed the last prophet. Most orthdox Christians consider Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation.

I am not supporting intolerance for other religions. In fact I am very tolerant of beliefs different to mine, but I am saying that we should not be expected to accept all religions as equally valid. It is this dogma that we find more in 'Hinduism', a simplistic religious classification created by the British, that I am challenging.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

This ignores the complexities of Hinduism, where the Vedas play a rather superficial role in most Hindu religions.

No, it acknowledges the common heritage and interlinkage of ideas. And thus our essential unity. Let's please not do more partitions. We've seen enough...

In Shiavism and Shaktism for example, the agamas are considered more important, some Shivaivists even reject the Vedas.

Rarely will you find statements to the effect that shaivachara or shaktachara makes the vedas worthless. More often, you'll see the the agamic margas as being held to be beyond, but built upon, the Vedas.

Rather, these extreme statements are effectively born of ignorance or rhetoric or both - the agamas gained currency partially due to the restriction of the Vedas to the jati-varnas, which is improper - varna should not be by jati. You are correct that the Vedas play a small role in most Hindu religious practice nowadays, however nowhere is the essence of the Vedas better conserved than in the tantra shastra - whether acknowledged or not.

What is this essence? The conjoined mandala of sun, moon and fire - and thus the deities of kula/krama.

 

[Jainarayan]

Now before Hindus start to hurl abuses at me for being "intolerant" I would like to remind them that Jews, Muslims and Christians think the same about each others religion, despite the fact that they all accept the authority of Abraham. Abrahamic religions are not religious relativists, they all recognize that only their religion is the truest, and that is why they are adherent of it. Why would you be an adherent of any religion, if you recognized other religions as true as well?

We are not Abrahamics.

 

[Surya Deva]

No, it acknowledges the common heritage and interlinkage of ideas. And thus our essential unity. Let's please not do more partitions. We've seen enough...

It acknowledges the common heritage and interlinkage of ideas as much as the term 'Abrahamism' would do for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, to call it a religion would be a fallacy, because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are different religions and fundamentally disagree with one another. Likewise, the different religions of Hinduism fundamentally disagree with one another. They cannot be reconciled with one another because they are fundamentally opposed to one another.

We need to start recognizing all these different traditions/sects within Hinduism as different religions. This is better for unity, because rather than constantly quarreling with each other as to what does it mean to be Hindu and living in perpetual confusion and a fragmented state, we can instead learn to treat each others tradition as separate religion and learn to tolerate each other and have a better idea of what our own religion is.

You are correct that the Vedas play a small role in most Hindu religious practice nowadays, however nowhere is the essence of the Vedas better conserved than in the tantra shastra - whether acknowledged or not.

Absolutely, then how on Earth can we consider the Vedas to be canonical or the highest authority, when they play only a token role in Hinduism today? It makes the doctrine of sruti vs smriti redundant. In other religions their canons really are authority and define their religion. No Muslim will go against the authority of the Quran and no Christian would go against the authority of the bible. Hindus, on the other hand are always going against the authority of the Vedas. Vasihnavas disregard the Vedas in favour of the Gita and the Puranas. Shiavists and shaktas disregard the Vedas in favour of the agamas/tantras.

 

[Surya Deva]

We are not Abrahamics.

We don't seem to be anything lol

 

[Jainarayan]

No Muslim will go against the authority of the Quran and no Christian would go against the authority of the bible.

Not true in the least.

 

[Riverwolf]

I disagree, many Jews, Christians and Muslims are not pluralists. I have rarely ever met a a Muslim who regards any other religion of than Islam as true, it is the official position of their own religion the Quran is the last and most perfect revelation and Mohammed the last prophet. Most orthdox Christians consider Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation.

And I've met many who were pluralist.

I am not supporting intolerance for other religions. In fact I am very tolerant of beliefs different to mine, but I am saying that we should not be expected to accept all religions as equally valid. It is this dogma that we find more in 'Hinduism', an simplistic religious classification created by the British, that I am challenging.

I understand that, and I, too, consider the term to be more of an umbrella term.

But while some paths are invalid, others are perfectly valid. I follow Jesus's advice in this case: by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

It acknowledges the common heritage and interlinkage of ideas as much as the term 'Abrahamism' would do for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Correct, but how we take the labels is. There is no history of Vaishnavas slaughtering Shaivas and vice versa (except in the extreme case of the naga akharas...)

I agree that "Hinduism" is analogous to "Abrahamism" or even "Jordanism," yet our unity with one another - well demonstrated by history, is far more important than the manufactured divisions, whereas in the Abrahamic faiths, these divisions have reigned paramount. Do you really want to follow in their schismatic footstesps? - remember, it gets hard to walk on both sides of a widening chasm.

Likewise, the different religions of Hinduism fundamentally disagree with one another. They cannot be reconciled with one another because they are fundamentally opposed to one another.

If this is the case, how am I able to reconcile them within myself? It is not that they can be contorted to say the same things: rather, multiple viewpoints can co-exist peacefully and synergistically whether in a society, or a single individual.

We need to start recognizing all these different traditions/sects within Hinduism as different religions.

We do, actually. By default. Again, this is a manufactured issue.

Absolutely, then how on Earth can we consider the Vedas to be canonical or the highest authority, when they play only a token role in Hinduism today? It makes the doctrine of sruti vs smriti redundant. In other religions their canons really are authority and define their religion. No Muslim will go against the authority of the Quran and no Christian would go against the authority of the bible. Hindus, on the other hand are always going against the authority of the Vedas. Vasihnavas disregard the Vedas in favour of the Gita and the Puranas. Shiavists and shaktas disregard the Vedas in favour of the agamas/tantras.

Vedas are lost. How many recensions remain to be widely re-circulated in society? A paltry few. The shakhanaddha understanding is lost. Even if one has a good grasp of Vedic-era sanskrit, one cannot possibly understand the meaning of the Vedas save the few instances where the suktas are (relatively) clear and unambiguous, or where explicitly elucidated by upanishads - or sometimes even aranyakas. For example: brihadaranyaka upanishad's explanation of ashvamedha, and taittirya aranyaka's explanation of pravargya and shukra.

The vedas are simply not accessible to society until substantial recovery is made - and indeed, it must be made.

What we have left are the attendants to the ved - the vedic upanishads, etc., as well as smriti & agama. Hence, our modern Hinduism.

I agree that everything needs to be brought back to the Vedas, but how to accomplish? Please give an action plan rather than divisive complaint.

 

[Jainarayan]

We don't seem to be anything lol

My point is that you're making an apples to oranges comparison. Hinduism is a hell of a lot more unified in beliefs than the Abrahamics. Shaivas, Shaktas, and Vaishnavas have not slaughtered each other the way Christians and Muslims have slaughtered each other over beliefs; the Third Reich was ostensibly Christian, and it murdered millions of Jews and Christians.

 

[Jainarayan]

There is no history of Vaishnavas slaughtering Shaivas and vice versa (except in the extreme case of the naga akharas...)

Shaivas, Shaktas, and Vaishnavas have not slaughtered each other the way Christians and Muslims have slaughtered each other over beliefs; the Third Reich was ostensibly Christian, and it murdered millions of Jews and Christians.

OK, this is what happens when one does not read through the thread. On the other hand, is this to say great minds think alike? :biglaugh:

 

[Vinayaka]

This whole idea is not an issue anywhere but in a very few people, some of whom visit forums.

 

[Surya Deva]

And I've met many who were pluralist.

I have no doubt there are religious pluralists Christians and Muslims, but they are far outnumbered by the majority who are not. Shall we create a poll in the Abrahamic DIR to test this, or do you agree with me?

I understand that, and I, too, consider the term to be more of an umbrella term.

But while some paths are invalid, others are perfectly valid. I follow Jesus's advice in this case: by their fruits ye shall know them.

Thank you, I consider everything other than Advaita Vedanta to be invalid, because it is based on ignorant perception. Advaita Vedanta is about the absolute reality, and there is only one absolute reality. So there is no variance in truth. Either people have the correct perception of reality or they do not.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have no doubt there are religious pluralists Christians and Muslims, but they are far outnumbered by the majority who are not. Shall we create a poll in the Abrahamic DIR to test this, or do you agree with me?

Argumentum ad numerum.

Besides, Advaita Vedanta is, adherant-wise, a very tiny religion compared to other forms of Hinduism. If numbers do represent a religion, Advaita Vedanta would be among the worst representatives of Hinduism.

Thank you, I consider everything other than Advaita Vedanta to be invalid, because it is based on ignorant perception. Advaita Vedanta is about the absolute reality, and there is only one absolute reality. So there is no variance in truth. Either people have the correct perception of reality or they do not.

Again, religion has nothing to do with external reality. It's an inward journey.

I'm a Shaiva, so I consider Siva to be supreme.

Siva is all-pervasive (vishnum).

Vishnu is auspicious (sivam).

 

[Jainarayan]

Siva is all-pervasive (vishnum).

Vishnu is auspicious (sivam).

You're going to make me put the quote "Shivasya hridayam Vishnur Vishnoscha hridayam Shiva" aren't you?

 

[Riverwolf]

You're going to make me put the quote "Shivasya hridayam Vishnur Vishnoscha hridayam Shiva" aren't you?

You just did.

 

[Jainarayan]

Oh yeah.

 

[Surya Deva]

Correct, but how we take the labels is. There is no history of Vaishnavas slaughtering Shaivas and vice versa (except in the extreme case of the naga akharas...)

The naga akharas are only cases that we know of where overt religious violence took place. There are probably more. In the past Indian kingdoms were divided into religious states depending on the religion adopted as official state religions and we know that wars between kingdoms did take place.

I agree that "Hinduism" is analogous to "Abrahamism" or even "Jordanism," yet our unity with one another - well demonstrated by history, is far more important than the manufactured divisions, whereas in the Abrahamic faiths, these divisions have reigned paramount. Do you really want to follow in their schismatic footstesps? - remember, it gets hard to walk on both sides of a widening chasm.

I really must disagree. There is a tendency for Hindus to celebrate their diversity as if it a good thing and actually brings unity, but it is this diversity in the first place that has resulted in the fall of Hindu civilization from a civilization was once the richest, most prosperous, literate and developed in the world to one of the poorest, illiterate and most under developed parts of the world. As Hinduism has historically always been highly divided into kingdoms and constantly warring with each other, Hinduism fell prey to constant invasions from foreigners. The foreign invaders attacked kingdoms one after the other and subjugated all of India. It is because of these internal divisions that the British were able to cleverly pit one state against the other.

Hindus still have not learnt their lesson and still remain divided today this time is in the name of nationalism. Dravidian nationalism, Shiva Sena, RSS/VHP. India is so hopelessly divided today, that again has come under threat of foreign invasions, this time China is playing the game of divide and rule. At the same time I have no sympathy for the Hindus - when they refuse to learn the lessons of history and continue to remain divided and fragmented.

Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam because they were unified and organized were able to subjugate much of the world and usher in an age of science and technology. China today, following in the footsteps of previous powers is a highly organized country and is respected by the entire world. While India is often mocked.

If this is the case, how am I able to reconcile them within myself? It is not that they can be contorted to say the same things: rather, multiple viewpoints can co-exist peacefully and synergistically whether in a society, or a single individual.

Multiple viewpoints existing in a single individual is confusion or sczhiophrenia. We should certainly consider all viewpoints, but finally we must use our dialectical reasoning and decide which viewpoint is the most logical and consistent.

We do, actually. By default. Again, this is a manufactured issue.

No, of course we dont. We consider them all 'Hinduism' Rather than looking at them as separate religions, we see them as sects of the same religion. The truth is they are not sects, they are religions.

Vedas are lost. How many recensions remain to be widely re-circulated in society? A paltry few. The shakhanaddha understanding is lost. Even if one has a good grasp of Vedic-era sanskrit, one cannot possibly understand the meaning of the Vedas save the few instances where the suktas are (relatively) clear and unambiguous, or where explicitly elucidated by upanishads - or sometimes even aranyakas. For example: brihadaranyaka upanishad's explanation of ashvamedha, and taittirya aranyaka's explanation of pravargya and shukra.

Vedas are lost, much for the same reason the old Sumerian and Egyptian religions are lost. Human thought has progressed beyond them. Do we really want to go back to a time when humans and animals were sacrificed to appease gods? Do we want to go back to a time of slaving after some man-gods and priests? There is no reason to revive the Vedas - let the dead rest in peace.

However, what we do need to appreciate is the culmination of Vedic people: Vedanta. Vedanta is widely recognized to be the acme of human thought by philosophers and intellectuals, because it is represents a coming of age of human thought, a quantum leap in human religion - realizing their essential unity with the universe(Thou art that) and such a deep sublime thought continues to inspire scientists and physicists today. Vedanta paves the way for a universal religion for all of humanity. While, Hindu people abandoned the project of the Vedic people in favour of worshiping gods and rituals(exactly what Vedanta rose up against) and now have met their fate in the near total destruction of Hindu civilization, modern scientists of the West like Oppenheimer, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, David Bohm are the the true offspring of the Vedic people.

As unfortunate as it to say Hindu people are no longer the torch bearers for Vedic wisdom, it is the West. Hindu people are stuck in a time warp of dead traditions and perpetual confusion on what Hinduism means. It is the West that is leading the way for global spirituality today.

I agree that everything needs to be brought back to the Vedas, but how to accomplish? Please give an action plan rather than divisive complaint.

If you mean reviving Hindu civilization? Hopeless. Hinduism is far too fragmented to be unified now. Everybody that has tried, such as as Swami Vivekananda could not put the humpty dumpty of Hinduism back together.
Hinduism will become a dead religion, especially if India falls in the hands of China in the future. I personally think India is a doomed country.

But Santana Dharma has a great future. The torch of Vedic wisdom has passed onto the West today. The West is behind all leading research into spirituality today and a huge movement of spirituality is occurring within Western science. This is why many Hindu gurus are jumping ship and moving their center of activities to the West.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Your posts reflect little understanding of the Vedas - which, given your name, is a bit boggling. I think I'm done here. Good day. Enjoy your debate - and do try, once in a while, to bring something of value to the forums rather than senseless division.