Why Hinduism?

[Aupmanyav]

So Brahman was there before creation? By creation I am referring to the universe.

Yeah, some eternal has to be there. The only problem that I have is about the 'non-existent' phase of Brahman, - when it is not manifested. That is like a sixth dimension, which we cannot visualize at present, not even in a Samadhi.

 

[SomeRandom]

SomeRandom. I would really appreciate if you could give me the direct reference. It's not a requirement, just a request. If you could please.

I promise you, I will purchase them and read up. Thank you so much.

Honestly? Hindus on average don’t bother to really read the scriptures because it’s largely a practice based religion. No one really cares unless they’re a pundit (priest.) And that’s just because it’s their literal job. Hindus just go about their day to day and find whichever philosophy appeals to them
But regardless this is what I’ve found
Trimurti | - Hindu Scripture

 

[LuisDantas]

This seems to be a good example of situations where Wikipedia is in fact very useful. The current version of the Trimurti article is succint but IMO well written and also informative.

Trimurti - Wikipedia

Of particular note for @firedragon 's purposes as I understand them:

(...)

The Puranic period from the 4th to the 12th century CE saw the rise of post-Vedic religion and the evolution of what R. C. Majumdar calls "synthetic Hinduism".[10]

This period had no homogeneity, and included orthodox Brahmanism in the form of remnants of older Vedic faith traditions, along with different sectarian religions, notably Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and Shaktism that were within the orthodox fold yet still formed distinct entities.[11] One of the important traits of this period is a spirit of harmony between orthodox and sectarian forms.[12] Regarding this spirit of reconciliation, R. C. Majumdar says that:

Its most notable expression is to be found in the theological conception of the Trimūrti, i.e., the manifestation of the supreme God in three forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva... But the attempt cannot be regarded as a great success, for Brahmā never gained an ascendancy comparable to that of Śiva or Viṣṇu, and the different sects often conceived the Trimūrti as really the three manifestations of their own sectarian god, whom they regarded as Brahman or Absolute.[13]

The identification of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purāṇa, wherein 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme.[14] Noting Western interest in the idea of trinity, historian A. L. Basham explains the background of the Trimurti as follows:

There must be some doubt as to whether the Hindu tradition has ever recognized Brahma as the Supreme Deity in the way that Visnu and Siva have been conceived of and worshiped.[15]

The concept of Trimurti is also present in the Maitri Upanishad, where the three gods are explained as three of his supreme forms.[16]

 

[stvdv]

Though you don't proselytise, would you be kind enough to share some thoughts on "why hinduism"? So of course this might entail the question "Why not other theologies but Hinduism". Thank you very much.

Why Hinduism (is my choice)?:
1)It offers all I need, plus much more
2)Not judgmental nor belittling other Faiths
3)Freedom to select the Path best fit to me

Why not other theologies but Hinduism?:
I (Hindu) can pray to Christ, Muhammad
Hence other Faiths are not excluded
"Why not" does not apply to me

Sanathana Dharma: The eternal Religion

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What about the so-called atoms in your so-called finger?

That is one narative, there are others possible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Which ones? How are these authenticated?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which ones? How are these authenticated?

That is up to you and I can still do it differently.

 

[sayak83]

Oh I see.

Is this term even mentioned in any of the scriptures? It's not like I have read all the scriptures or anything, just a query. If it is mentioned, I am definitely going to read it. Please advice.

Very rarely. But it can be seen from the various scriptures and the Puranas and the itihasas that the three...Brahma, Visnu and Siva were considered the three main personal deities...since every Purana focusing on a chosen deity (say Visnu) explained how the other two (Siva and Brahma here) were actually created from the chosen deity or dependent on the chosen deity in some way. So if you do ask a lay Hindu who are the three main male Gods in Hinduism, the name of these three will crop up.

Brahma is different from Brahman.

 

[Vinayaka]

That sorely misses out on Shakti.
No, Vinayaka. Brahma was neither a part of Panchayatan Puja (five deities) nor of Shanmata (six deities).

"It consists of the worship of five deities .. Ganesha, Shakti, Shiva, Vishnu and Surya. Sometimes an Ishta Devata (any personal god of devotee's preference) or Kartikeya is the sixth deity in the mandala (see Shanmata)."
Panchayatana puja - Wikipedia
Never ask Hindus such statistical questions. One may be a monist at one Planck's instant and a polytheist at the next Planck's instant. It is Hindu religious Quantum Mechanics. It is like asking whether light is a wave or a particle. Both stances are well-known to even an uneducated person living in a far-off village. However, apparently, the majority is polytheist.

Thanks for the reply on Smarta. I had originally written that, then doubted my memory so researched it only slightly, found a site where Brahma was there, then changed it. But you confirmed my original memory was correct.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is that how the Trimurti developed?

I have no idea how it developed originally, in the 2 or 3 scriptures quoted. It came to some prominence from the early writings of non-Hindu indologists. When I was a kid 50 years ago, the encyclopedias would have it as the first sentence or at least somewhere in their articles. But these days you don't see it as much, as they've corrected or updated the info based on input from actual practitioners.

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh I see.

Is this term even mentioned in any of the scriptures? It's not like I have read all the scriptures or anything, just a query. If it is mentioned, I am definitely going to read it. Please advice.

According to the wiki article, it's mentioned in the Kurma Purana, and in the Maitri Upanishad. It didn't give the specific lines, and it might be difficult to find a good English translation of these texts.

 

[firedragon]

Very rarely. But it can be seen from the various scriptures and the Puranas and the itihasas that the three...Brahma, Visnu and Siva were considered the three main personal deities...since every Purana focusing on a chosen deity (say Visnu) explained how the other two (Siva and Brahma here) were actually created from the chosen deity or dependent on the chosen deity in some way. So if you do ask a lay Hindu who are the three main male Gods in Hinduism, the name of these three will crop up.

Brahma is different from Brahman.

Is there a possibility to give a direct reference?

Thank you very much.

 

[firedragon]

According to the wiki article, it's mentioned in the Kurma Purana, and in the Maitri Upanishad. It didn't give the specific lines, and it might be difficult to find a good English translation of these texts.

I have not even heard of these Purana's. But this is great information. Thank you so much. I will try to find.

 

[firedragon]

Honestly? Hindus on average don’t bother to really read the scriptures because it’s largely a practice based religion. No one really cares unless they’re a pundit (priest.) And that’s just because it’s their literal job. Hindus just go about their day to day and find whichever philosophy appeals to them
But regardless this is what I’ve found
Trimurti | - Hindu Scripture

Thank you.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have not even heard of these Purana's. But this is great information. Thank you so much. I will try to find.

Nor had I. Another reason regular Hindus object is that it limits or distorts what we believe. For example, in the trimurthi perspective, Shiva is portrayed as only the destroyer.
Firstly, destroy has a negative connotation to it, and secondly, for Saivites, Siva does it all ... emanates, sustains, and does the dissolution.

Dissolution is a far better translation than destroy, and emanate (or extend) is far better than create. All in all the trimurthi concept is a huge distortion of Hinduism. My view is that if somebody wants to get information on any subject, it's best to go to somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

[firedragon]

Nor had I. Another reason regular Hindus object is that it limits or distorts what we believe. For example, in the trimurthi perspective, Shiva is portrayed as only the destroyer.
Firstly, destroy has a negative connotation to it, and secondly, for Saivites, Siva does it all ... emanates, sustains, and does the dissolution.

Dissolution is a far better translation than destroy, and emanate (or extend) is far better than create. All in all the trimurthi concept is a huge distortion of Hinduism. My view is that if somebody wants to get information on any subject, it's best to go to somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

That's great information. Thanks mate.

BTW, if dissolution is a better translation, what is it a translation of? What's the actual word in the scripture?

 

[Vinayaka]

That's great information. Thanks mate.

BTW, if dissolution is a better translation, what is it a translation of? What's the actual word in the scripture?

I'm not sure. Aup or someone else knowledgeable in Sanskrit would know I imagine. I don't know Sanskrit. Many Hindu scholars speak of untranslatable words, due to the crazy difference in paradigms. This is likely one of them.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure. Aup or someone else knowledgeable in Sanskrit would know I imagine. I don't know Sanskrit. Many Hindu scholars speak of untranslatable words, due to the crazy difference in paradigms. This is likely one of them.

No problem brother. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

 

[Vinayaka]

No problem brother. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

Here's a list I found of common untranslatable words.

Non-Translatable Sanskrit words

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, some eternal has to be there. The only problem that I have is about the 'non-existent' phase of Brahman, - when it is not manifested. That is like a sixth dimension, which we cannot visualize at present, not even in a Samadhi.

In your paradigm, does Brahman have a state of Samadhi? Is not samadhi a praana situation literally? I am a little puzzled.