Hinduist would you agree with this statement?

[FreeThinker619]

Hinduism today basically refers to all the philosophies of India that view the Vedas as supreme authority, even if those philosophies contradict each other. Buddhists don't give authority to the Vedas and neither does Jainism, that's why they are considered separate.

Sankara was from the "impersonal" school, a more abstract way of interpreting the Vedas. Basically, according to him, the world is an illusion and the only thing that is real is pure conciousness. All souls of living things are actually part of the supreme soul and therefore one and the same. The personal school is different in that it views all living souls as sources of the the supreme soul and therefore subservient. They view brahman and Vishnu to be one and the same, it's a more personal relationship with God that I personally agree with more.

Sankara was a guy that came around when India was a breeding ground for competing philosophies. He basically consolidated things by defeating different gurus in debates and forming his own school which eventually became mainstream. He was instrumental in creating a vedic revival in India that eventually expelled Buddhism out of India and into the far east. it wasn't solely because of him but he played a huge role in it. Buddhism almost took shyt over.

Eventually other gurus from the personal school came around - madhva, and ramanuja, that competed with Sankara school and got their own chunk of support. Those three gurus are the main dudes who pretty much defined "Hindu thought" today.

 

[Poeticus]

They view brahman and Vishnu to be one and the same

It would be more correct to state that early, traditional Advaita-m espoused the notion that Vishnu is the God[father] of brahman.

In other words: brahman is Vishnu's play-toy.

He was instrumental in creating a vedic revival in India that eventually expelled Buddhism out of India and into the far east. it wasn't solely because of him but he played a huge role in it. Buddhism almost took shyt over.

A "vedic revival"? It was more like a Vedantic, Upanishadic revival than "Vedic". "Vedic" has always been an outlier; yajna-dharma was usually always esoterically exclusive - pretty much in the minority of things. Usually on the fringe.

Regarding your statement about "expelling Buddhism out of India" - that's a misconception. Any such "expelling" happened around Ghazni's raids, and the biggest death blow, according to Dr. Ambedkar, was the iconoclastic destruction of Nalanda University.

All Shankara ever did was engage in debates. He just happened to win them. Many that lost became of the astika, rather than stay of the nāstika. There was a rule that the loser would come into the fold of the victor.

ps - What's a "Hinduist"?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=FreeThinker619;3662236]Hinduism today basically refers to all the philosophies of India that view the Vedas as supreme authority, even if those philosophies contradict each other. Buddhists don't give authority to the Vedas and neither does Jainism, that's why they are considered separate.

I think Hinduism is a mix of Agamic, Puranic and Ithihasic philosophy and practices, Vedic Philosophy and practices are not the major players in everyday Hinduism-although the Veda is acknowledged by Purana and Ithihas (and maybe some Agamas) and influences these philosophies, i would not say that Hinduism is limited only to those philosophies that view the Ved as supreme.

I don't think Philosophical contradictions matter much to the average Hindu, because its just a difference in approach (darshan) to the same ultimate truth, which is the basic foundation of Agama, Veda, upanishads, Purana, ithihasa and everything else in between.

And as for Shankara, i would agree with Mitra, that it was not Shankara who "defeated", the Buddhist and pushed them east, i think he just revitalized Vedantic Philosophy, and won debates, not actually physically defeating, more like intellectually and philosophically overpowering some.

 

[ShivaFan]

5,000 years from now, Sankara will be one notable footnote of many footnotes in the "book of Hinduism", but the Rik Veda, the Ramayana, Agamas and others will still be alive.

All I have been given, and taught, and experienced in my Life of Hinduism has little to do with Sankara. But I do enjoy poetic bhajans such as to Mother Annapurna which have been attributed to him.

Sankara did not drive Buddhism, nor for that matter Vedic Hinduism, nor Village Hinduism, nor Jainism, nor Fire Worshippers, nor anything from India. All that was in India then, is still there now. It is alive and well.

Islamic despots tore down Buddhist universities and temples, Hindu temples, they built mosques on top of such Holy Tirthas using the stones and columns and marble of those ruins, hoping that people will still come to that Holy Place upon which now stands a mosque or minaret. But they failed to tear down Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikh. There will be 10,000 more temples for each one torn down.

As far as Buddhism, it remains strong, it even now grows. It came from India. It walks outward to the world. Hinduism is stronger still. Soon it will be in outer space. The Jains will erect the first Religious Icon on the moon, there is no stopping it now because I already know.

What Sankara achieved in one region in India-Bharat, others will come in the future and exceed this on a world level, and after that on a planetary level. Among humans, Hinduism is an experience that is now going farther, as far as humans go, that is Hinduism.

India is the Mother. We are all Her children. Children may leave their Mother. Yet, they never really do.

The word Om is what all Hindus share. I hope when we encounter the next mind or people beyond Earth, those others first hear us say Om and not a cry in fear.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

He was instrumental in creating a vedic revival in India that eventually expelled Buddhism out of India and into the far east. it wasn't solely because of him but he played a huge role in it. Buddhism almost took shyt over. Those three gurus are the main dudes who pretty much defined "Hindu thought" today.

You are forgetting one more important Guru, Chaitanya of the Hare-Krishnas. Did Sankara expel Buddhism out of India? Sankara, sure, was an important as far as academic debates went, but I would not say he was the sole cause of disappearance of Buddhism in India. Till the 12th Century, Buddhism was extent in India and Nalanda University was active and received support from Hindu kings of Pala dynasty of Bengal (otherwise it would not have survived). Sankara was in the 8th Century. It is the Muslims who destroyed it in 1197.

What happened is a little more complex. Sankara supported Bhakti movement, which went on gaining prominence. Hinduism had already accepted Buddha as an avatara of Lord Vishnu. Lay Buddhist were worshiping Buddha like a God (Mahayana). Monks whether Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain were respected by all people, whether Hindus, Buddhist or Jains. The way of life was the same for lay people whether Hindu or Buddhists. With no clear lines of demarcation, Buddhism juat merged into Hinduism in India.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It would be more correct to state that early, traditional Advaita-m espoused the notion that Vishnu is the God [father] of brahman.

Vaishnavas, when would you drop this 'my father is stronger' approach? Every one knows that Brahman is the primal entity in the universe and it is just a name for Shiva.

 

[Poeticus]

Hinduism had already accepted Buddha as an avatara of Lord Vishnu.

Not "Hinduism", but Vaishnava-Dharma. Vaishnava-s appropriated Buddha into the fold as a Vishnu avatar. It was more of a political move rather than a theological one.

Vaishnavas, when would you drop this 'my father is stronger' approach? Every one knows that Brahman is the primal entity in the universe and it is just a name for Shiva.

Me? A Vaishnava? That's a new one. It would behoove you to go through many of my older posts to acknowledge which school I belong to. Who knows? You may even be surprised.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram MV ji :namaste

Not "Hinduism", but Vaishnava-Dharma. Vaishnava-s appropriated Buddha into the fold as a Vishnu avatar. It was more of a political move rather than a theological one.

my dearest little brother , ...I love you dearly ....but you say these things which vex me ..
''appropriated '' ?

political move ?

.....so when did this political move take place ?

Me?A Vaishnava? That's a new one. It would behoove you to go through many of my older posts to acknowledge which school I belong to. Who knows? You may even be surprised.

jai jai , I think when our freind has finnished reading your earlier posts also it would behove our freind to read the bhagavad gita ....

quote Aupmanyav ......
Every one knows that Brahman is the primal entity in the universe and it is just a name for Shiva.

then If you know this how come you are an atheist ???

and second behoving of the morning , ...a true vaisnava has more politeness and simply understands Brahman to be the supreme knowing that this encompasses Brahma visnu and Shiva .

but I will forgive you because you remembered shree Chaitanya , ....

You are forgetting one more important Guru, Chaitanya of the Hare-Krishnas.

but please please prabhu it is Gaudia vaisnava not Hare-Krishnas !!!


any how ... I will also forgive MV for attempting to vex me .....

Originally Posted by मैत्रावरुणिः
It would be more correct to state that early, traditional Advaita-m espoused the notion that Vishnu is the God [father] of brahman.

:flower2::flower2::flower2::flower2::flower2:
Bhaja Govindam Hari Govindam ......

 

[Tyaga]

It would be more correct to state that early, traditional Advaita-m espoused the notion that Vishnu is the God[father] of brahman.

In other words: brahman is Vishnu's play-toy.

Does any of the (Mukhya)Upanishadic passages support this claim?

 

[Tyaga]

As for Shankara,he praised Buddha as ''Yoginam Chakravartin" or monarch among Yogis.

 

[Ravi500]

Hinduism today basically refers to all the philosophies of India that view the Vedas as supreme authority, even if those philosophies contradict each other. Buddhists don't give authority to the Vedas and neither does Jainism, that's why they are considered separate.

See, it is not just Buddha and Mahavira who rejected the Vedas as supreme authority. Krishna too in a sense was rebellious towards the supreme authority of the Vedas.

Krishna himself states in the Gita,"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. "

Issue was that the Vedas were hijacked by the brahmins in those times solely for rituals for materialistic purposes.

The lower castes, especially the untouchables, were denied the study of sanskrit or the vedas.

There were even smritis , which are manmade, suggesting that molten lead should be poured into the ears of the shudras if he hears the vedas.

Hinduism in those times degenerated into a very inhumane,barbaric and oppressive system, and the untouchables suffered the most from it.

Krishna stated in the Gita that even the shudras and women too, can attain enlightenment or great spiritual merit through love for God.

Buddha and Mahavira, in order to develop the masses spiritually ( as the lower castes and untouchables formed the vast majority in the population ) rejected the authority of the Vedas and sanskrit, and taught in the common language of Pali.

This resulted in the spiritual development of the Shudras and untouchables to a very large extent at that time.

Similar initiatives were also done by Guru Raidas who was a cobbler and an enlightened master, Gadge Maharaj, Namdev , Narayana Guru and Kabir and many others, all of whom rose from the lower castes and untouchables.

Most of the majority of the Hindus follow these masters and their teachings, as they are from the lower castes. They have no idea of sanskrit or vedas, but at the same time follow the teachings of the masters mentioned to conduct their lives. And you would find much of these people to be of great spiritual merit mainly because of their inner simplicity .

So, in a sense , it would be incorrect to state that vedas are the supreme authority of all hindus, when hundreds of millions of hindus , due to caste oprression, has not learned the Vedas, and have spiritual knowledge only from the teachings of their spiritual mentors.

Even today, there are many lower caste hindus who are barred from entering temples in certain areas due to caste discrimination.

 

[Poeticus]

Does any of the (Mukhya)Upanishadic passages support this claim?

Of that, I am not sure. My statement had to deal with Advaita-m's "founding father" and his tendencies to describe Vishnu as supreme, big boy, big daddy status. Even though he was a Smarta, Shankara praised Vishnu as the supreme the most. However, this question should be asked to Jaskaran. He's way more knowledgeable on early Advaita-m than I ever will be.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I think Hinduism is a mix of Agamic, Puranic and Ithihasic philosophy and practices, Vedic Philosophy and practices are not the major players in everyday Hinduism-although the Veda is acknowledged by Purana and Ithihas (and maybe some Agamas) and influences these philosophies, i would not say that Hinduism is limited only to those philosophies that view the Ved as supreme.

I don't think Philosophical contradictions matter much to the average Hindu, because its just a difference in approach (darshan) to the same ultimate truth, which is the basic foundation of Agama, Veda, upanishads, Purana, ithihasa and everything else in between.

And as for Shankara, i would agree with Mitra, that it was not Shankara who "defeated", the Buddhist and pushed them east, i think he just revitalized Vedantic Philosophy, and won debates, not actually physically defeating, more like intellectually and philosophically overpowering some.

Namaste. :namaste

Nicely said!

I was about to say exactly the same thing, and although I cannot quote any texts or scriptures like my learned forum brethren (I used to be able to do so), I can understand it in an easier way by from what I know about my own personal faith and sampradaya which is Agama Hindu Dharma and also based upon the principles of Tantra and Animism - which also borders on Advaita Vedanta (with Buddha making a cameo, but stopping at Buddhi - Mind, but not Atman - Soul).

Anyway, there's Agama Dharma and there's Sanatana Dharma and each depend on the texts they study (we hold the sacred Vedas in very high esteem, and we believe in much, but not all of it, but prefer to follow the Left Hand Path of Hinduism)..that is still Hinduism.

Shankara was from the 'both deeply personal and/or impersonal school' according to which horn of the dilemma he rode. He was a Smarta, and while some say that he was a Vaishnava...however, based on the beautiful hymns he composed for Lord Siva (a.k.a Kalabhairavastakam, Lingashtakam, Atmashatakam)....so he both was Siva and loved Him at the same time...I'd really like to learn how to do that trick one day (maybe I should go read more Vijnana Bhairava Tantra and do more Trataka).

You should also read Shankara's Saundarya Lahari - the most glorious work to Mother Kali ever! and teaches you how to supplicate Divine Mother to awaken Her Divine Power.

He didn't just give commentary on the Vedas...the Upanishads did that, and then ended them (hence Vedanta).

This is from a Tantric perspective on the works and thoughts of Shankara....but I think that others place their own faith/belief/opinions on it too and seeing only what they want to see/believe about the whole thing.

That's my take on it. I don't really care about the debates, but they make for very nice stories.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not "Hinduism", but Vaishnava-Dharma. Vaishnava-s appropriated Buddha into the fold as a Vishnu avatar. It was more of a political move rather than a theological one.

Why? The Shaivas and Shaktas, and the Smartas, all acknowledge the avataras of Lord Vishnu.

 

[Tyaga]

Of that, I am not sure. My statement had to deal with Advaita-m's "founding father" and his tendencies to describe Vishnu as supreme, big boy, big daddy status. Even though he was a Smarta, Shankara praised Vishnu as the supreme the most. However, this question should be asked to Jaskaran. He's way more knowledgeable on early Advaita-m than I ever will be.

He was indeed a Smarta,i think he gave importance to all the deities.He is associated with many Devi legends in my state.The legend says that Devi appeared before Shankara due to his devotion to her.

This is the first time i'm hearing that Shankara viewed Vishnu as supreme.We should label him as a Vaishnava then

 

[Ravi500]

Hinduism today basically refers to all the philosophies of India that view the Vedas as supreme authority, even if those philosophies contradict each other. Buddhists don't give authority to the Vedas and neither does Jainism, that's why they are considered separate.

Sankara was from the "impersonal" school, a more abstract way of interpreting the Vedas. Basically, according to him, the world is an illusion and the only thing that is real is pure conciousness. All souls of living things are actually part of the supreme soul and therefore one and the same. The personal school is different in that it views all living souls as sources of the the supreme soul and therefore subservient. They view brahman and Vishnu to be one and the same, it's a more personal relationship with God that I personally agree with more.

Sankara was a guy that came around when India was a breeding ground for competing philosophies. He basically consolidated things by defeating different gurus in debates and forming his own school which eventually became mainstream. He was instrumental in creating a vedic revival in India that eventually expelled Buddhism out of India and into the far east. it wasn't solely because of him but he played a huge role in it. Buddhism almost took shyt over.

Eventually other gurus from the personal school came around - madhva, and ramanuja, that competed with Sankara school and got their own chunk of support. Those three gurus are the main dudes who pretty much defined "Hindu thought" today.

Also I would like to mention in this regard the observation of a Hindu spiritual master of India who stated that for the enlightened master , the Vedas is a tank of water when there is a flood.

The enlightened sage does not depend on the Vedas for guidance, but his own intuitive understanding.

Great masters like Guru Ravidas, or Kanakadas, achieved great spiritual upliftment even though they were denied the study of the Vedas by a tyrannical caste system.

Guru Raidas has even stated thus, "I Ravidas proclaim all vedas are worthless ".

At the same time you cannot deny that they are hindu spiritual masters revered by millions of Hindus. And that the vast majority of the Hindu people belong to the lower castes should be taken into consideration in this regard as well.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Why? The Shaivas and Shaktas, and the Smartas, all acknowledge the avataras of Lord Vishnu.

Meh...all except for the 10th. There's still some disagreement over whose job it is to 'destroy things' at the end of time. I like Lord Narisima Deva though.

The Moon is in Leo (my birth sign) on Valentine's Day...

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

then If you know this how come you are an atheist ???

and second behoving of the morning , ...a true vaisnava has more politeness and simply understands Brahman to be the supreme knowing that this encompasses Brahma visnu and Shiva .

but I will forgive you because you remembered shree Chaitanya , ....

but please please prabhu it is Gaudia vaisnava not Hare-Krishnas !!!

Ratikala, I am a very mixed sort of Hindu. I am a strong atheist, but I have never belittled the value of Hindu deities or our scriptures for my culture.

That is what exactly I am trying to tell the vaishnavas. Brahman equally encompasses Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and the Mother Goddess too (Mariamman, Adi Shakti).

I remember and venerate all our Acharyas and Saints. Nimbarka, Vallabha (though I have serious differences with him, more than with any other Acharya), Kabir, Raidas, Gorakhnath, and the Azhwars and Nayanars, every one (though I do not know much about the latter two). Hare-Krishnas, because they are better known, otherwise Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

 

[Tyaga]

^^This.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Issue was that the Vedas were hijacked by the brahmins in those times solely for rituals for materialistic purposes.

There were even smritis , which are manmade, suggesting that molten lead should be poured into the ears of the shudras if he hears the vedas. Hinduism in those times degenerated into a very inhumane,barbaric and oppressive system, and the untouchables suffered the most from it.

Similar initiatives were also done by Guru Raidas who was a cobbler and an enlightened master, Gadge Maharaj, Namdev , Narayana Guru and Kabir and many others, all of whom rose from the lower castes and untouchables.

Most of the majority of the Hindus follow these masters and their teachings, as they are from the lower castes. They have no idea of sanskrit or vedas, but at the same time follow the teachings of the masters mentioned to conduct their lives. And you would find much of these people to be of great spiritual merit mainly because of their inner simplicity .

So, in a sense , it would be incorrect to state that vedas are the supreme authority of all hindus, when hundreds of millions of hindus , due to caste oprression, has not learned the Vedas, and have spiritual knowledge only from the teachings of their spiritual mentors.

Even today, there are many lower caste hindus who are barred from entering temples in certain areas due to caste discrimination.

Vedas were Aryan books. Hinduism accepted them in a trade-off for their assimilation in Hinduism. Hinduism is not Vedic religion, that was very different. But since it is thousands of years since the assimilation, it has to be accepted. It is true that during a certain period, the lower castes had to suffer much because of brahmins.

So what if they were from lower castes, Guru Raidas, Gadge Maharaj, Namdev, Narayana Guru and Kabir are all venerable for all hindus. I agree with the red portion in your post. I have tried to put this point across at Wikipedia, but there is a strong coterie who is against it. The last point that you raise is unfortunate.