What do you think of Hinduism?

[Sphinx777]

The samhitas, the four original vedas, have many concepts in them which contradict each other, but all hindu philosophies teach that the samhitas, at least, are infallible. All hindu scriptures, both sruti (those meant to be divinely inspired) and smriti (those which are 'remembered'), are considered vedas. Those sciptures more recent then the samhitas, espouse even more disparate concepts then the vedas, because they are written from the point of view of differing sects and philosophical schools. I'm not sure whether all of the vedas are beleived to be infallible, or if it is just the samhitas, but if it is all the vedas, then this presents massive problems. The belief that just the samhitas are infallible presents problems too.

Many schools of philosophy are much older then most of the scriptures, or at least originated before most of the scriptures existed, which means that at the time, only the samhitas could have been considered infallible. But does the doctrine of infallibility of the vedas by extension include all scriptures that were later written? which adhere to the views of differing philosophical schools?

I understand that the vedas were revealed by many different rishis which accounts for the disparate concepts, but if that is the case then what is the neccessity of believing every statement in the vedas is infallible? Isn't that just irrational tradition? And if gurus or rishis are enlightened or at least very knowledgeable wouldn't they know better than to say all of the disparate concepts and statements in the vedas are infallible? If the rishis who revealed the vedas were enlightened and all of them saw the truth, and all their revelations are infallible, why do these revelations contradict each other? If the rishis had knowledge and experience of the infinite, and this meant that they could reveal very advanced things which have only been discovered by western science recently, why didn't they have advanced technology and medical knowledge? Why didn't they know all of the things that are now known about the brain, for example?

Furthermore many of the so called sages taught reprehensible things like rape, mysogony, human sacrifice, oppression of the lower castes, inappropriate behavior with animals etc. In the puranas, the sages don't exactly act like enlightened people. That's not the biggest problem of hindu mythology, considering how ridiculous, inane and irrational it all is. I'm sorry, but its true. And these myths were supposedly revealed by enlightened sages. Even the most staunch non-dualists are steeped in the myths and legends of the puranas. Just how does that make sense? It's just the contradictory and irrational nature of hinduism. Sadhus who are supposed to believe in the uncomprehendable, attributeless supreme reality which is the nature of shiva which we and everything are all a part of, and in the oneness of everything, also believe in the stories of shiva killing the other deities he is supposed to be one with, having wives and children, etc.

Could a Hindu comment on this?

 

[rainycity]

Could a Hindu comment on this?

apparently not

 

[R3quiem]

I think it's too diverse and contains too much information for it's own good. Is there anything that all Hindus can agree on, or no?

I think eastern philosophy and logic is very vague. Every time I ask a Hindu what an Atman is, I get explanations about what it's not, or how it cannot be perceived, etc.

Hindus I've talked to can't even agree whether Atman = Brahman or not. It's the central issue for some Hindus and a complete lie to others. I can't think of any more central of a disagreement than that- it's as bad as a hypothetical situation involving Christians arguing whether Jesus is god or Muslims arguing about how many gods there are.

I think it suffers from the same problem all religions have- it relies on blind faith.

I think the caste system is lame, and I think Hindu doctrine played a large role in allowing it to happen.


...All that being accounted for, I think it's generally superior to western religions.

 

[rainycity]

I think it's too diverse and contains too much information for it's own good. Is there anything that all Hindus can agree on, or no?

That's because its not a religion in the regular sense of the word, no single founder, no central text, no central set of doctrines and authority. That's usually the first thing you learn about it when you research it. There's lots disparate sects and philosophies, they're all 'hinduism', because they all share a heritage. It's too difficult to understand the many religions and schools of belief outside of their cultural context, and they're all part of the same tradition. With that said the tradition is blurred now with the access almost anybody can have to information, which was previously passed on from teacher to student just within one educated class of people.

Especially with diaspora hindus, it might often be the case that they learn most of what they know about their religion through their own research, and they can learn things which people in their position wouldn't have had access to in the past. So the sects and philosophical schools are not as clearly defined anymore. The opions, beleifs, and knowledge varies much more between one hindu and the next now. There are and always have been varying and disparate theories about the nature of the self, the nature of the divine, etc. Hinduism in its entirety isn't meant to have one uniform doctrine or set of doctrines.

I think eastern philosophy and logic is very vague. Every time I ask a Hindu what an Atman is, I get explanations about what it's not, or how it cannot be perceived, etc.

Hindus I've talked to can't even agree whether Atman = Brahman or not. It's the central issue for some Hindus and a complete lie to others. I can't think of any more central of a disagreement than that- it's as bad as a hypothetical situation involving Christians arguing whether Jesus is god or Muslims arguing about how many gods there are.

I think it suffers from the same problem all religions have- it relies on blind faith.

I think the caste system is lame, and I think Hindu doctrine played a large role in allowing it to happen.


...All that being accounted for, I think it's generally superior to western religions.

 

[Supreme]

I don't mind Hindus at all. But Hinduism is a collection of unspecified belifs from the Indian sub continent, not an organized religion. Hindus can't decide whether they're polytheists or monotheists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hindus can't decide whether they're polytheists or monotheists.

I'm pretty sure that they can decide this for their own specific doctrines. There is no reason why "Hinduism", as a collection of religions, must agree on matters of doctrine.

I could say that Christians can't decide on whether or not they are led by the Pope, but this wouldn't mean that Christians can't decide whether or not to have a Pope. They do, but they simply arrive at different answers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

Especially with diaspora hindus, it might often be the case that they learn most of what they know about their religion through their own research, and they can learn things which people in their position wouldn't have had access to in the past. So the sects and philosophical schools are not as clearly defined anymore. The opions, beleifs, and knowledge varies much more between one hindu and the next now. There are and always have been varying and disparate theories about the nature of the self, the nature of the divine, etc. Hinduism in its entirety isn't meant to have one uniform doctrine or set of doctrines.

 

[Supreme]

I'm pretty sure that they can decide this for their own specific doctrines. There is no reason why "Hinduism", as a collection of religions, must agree on matters of doctrine.

I could say that Christians can't decide on whether or not they are led by the Pope, but this wouldn't mean that Christians can't decide whether or not to have a Pope. They do, but they simply arrive at different answers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, but Christians all worship the same God. Hindus, however, worship various gods, one god or all gods.

 

[Druweid]

I'm pretty sure that they can decide this for their own specific doctrines. There is no reason why "Hinduism", as a collection of religions, must agree on matters of doctrine.

I'm inclined to agree with Mark. Any religion with literature of significant size (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc.) can be found to have apparent conflicts and disparity. The truest answer, imho, is not determining whether or not there are actual conflicts, but in how one reconciles (not resolves) such disparities for themselves.

Yes, but Christians all worship the same God. Hindus, however, worship various gods, one god or all gods.

There are many roads that lead to the same destination, and though one is longer, and another more difficult, it does not detract from the concept that the destination is the same. I realize this is contradictory to Christian philosophy, but this is one way that such an apparent disparity can be reconclied.

Regards,
-- Druweid

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

The samhitas, the four original vedas, have many concepts in them which contradict each other, but all hindu philosophies teach that the samhitas, at least, are infallible. All hindu scriptures, both sruti (those meant to be divinely inspired) and smriti (those which are 'remembered'), are considered vedas. Those sciptures more recent then the samhitas, espouse even more disparate concepts then the vedas, because they are written from the point of view of differing sects and philosophical schools. I'm not sure whether all of the vedas are beleived to be infallible, or if it is just the samhitas, but if it is all the vedas, then this presents massive problems. The belief that just the samhitas are infallible presents problems too.

Many schools of philosophy are much older then most of the scriptures, or at least originated before most of the scriptures existed, which means that at the time, only the samhitas could have been considered infallible. But does the doctrine of infallibility of the vedas by extension include all scriptures that were later written? which adhere to the views of differing philosophical schools?

I understand that the vedas were revealed by many different rishis which accounts for the disparate concepts, but if that is the case then what is the neccessity of believing every statement in the vedas is infallible? Isn't that just irrational tradition? And if gurus or rishis are enlightened or at least very knowledgeable wouldn't they know better than to say all of the disparate concepts and statements in the vedas are infallible? If the rishis who revealed the vedas were enlightened and all of them saw the truth, and all their revelations are infallible, why do these revelations contradict each other? If the rishis had knowledge and experience of the infinite, and this meant that they could reveal very advanced things which have only been discovered by western science recently, why didn't they have advanced technology and medical knowledge? Why didn't they know all of the things that are now known about the brain, for example?

Furthermore many of the so called sages taught reprehensible things like rape, mysogony, human sacrifice, oppression of the lower castes, inappropriate behavior with animals etc. In the puranas, the sages don't exactly act like enlightened people. That's not the biggest problem of hindu mythology, considering how ridiculous, inane and irrational it all is. I'm sorry, but its true. And these myths were supposedly revealed by enlightened sages. Even the most staunch non-dualists are steeped in the myths and legends of the puranas. Just how does that make sense? It's just the contradictory and irrational nature of hinduism. Sadhus who are supposed to believe in the uncomprehendable, attributeless supreme reality which is the nature of shiva which we and everything are all a part of, and in the oneness of everything, also believe in the stories of shiva killing the other deities he is supposed to be one with, having wives and children, etc.

I doubt if all Hindus think that the vedas are infallible. Given that it has a long history, chances of interpolations are there. It is a different matter if some orthodox Hindus say otherwise.

IMO, All parts of the veda do not address the same audience. Contradictions are pretty much possible. There are different levels of teaching for the less and more spiritually advanced. You may be taught that light travels in a straight line in a primary class but they dont teach the same thing at the college level.

Vedas use a lot of symbolism and it is difficult to obtain this knowledge by reading English translations and by learning from amateurs. For eg, you find an explanation for eclipses involving dragons swallowing the sun. But only literalists, like the Young Earth Creationsists believe in such tales . The Sun is frequently used to denote the Supreme Self ( Brahman) and the Moon (mind or Atman) for the Individual Self, so these eclipses are actually about how these entities are obstructed and nothing to do with solar or lunar eclipses. But you cannot obviously learn esoteric interpretations without many years of committed learning under a highly qualified teacher. The purANa-s are actually commentaries on the veda and without a sound understanding of the symbolism you will end up with lots of self contradictions, mytholgies, obsceneities and what not. Many people use these texts in a fairy tale manner and therefore it leads to lots of superstitions, dogmas, sectarian thoughts etc. Gods , Goddesses their children, weapons , demons etc are all esoteric and have little to do with the way human beings imagine them. It is very well known that the supreme being is beyond words and thought, so how can there be anthroponorphic descriptions except in a symbolic sense?

I do not still deny that there may be errors in these texts. Religeous texts are often used by some members to dominate over others and discriminate others, and also can be used to support a whole range of silly and superstitious rituals. I dont believe that any religion from God can support such things. In an ancient society where literacy rates were lower it is easy to brainwash others and even to become brainwashed to become subordinate to others. By using threats of hell, punishment etc any doctrine can be successfully established.

 

[MahaSudarshanChakra]

I think it's too diverse and contains too much information for it's own good. Is there anything that all Hindus can agree on, or no?

I think eastern philosophy and logic is very vague. Every time I ask a Hindu what an Atman is, I get explanations about what it's not, or how it cannot be perceived, etc.

Hindus I've talked to can't even agree whether Atman = Brahman or not. It's the central issue for some Hindus and a complete lie to others. I can't think of any more central of a disagreement than that- it's as bad as a hypothetical situation involving Christians arguing whether Jesus is god or Muslims arguing about how many gods there are.

I think it suffers from the same problem all religions have- it relies on blind faith.

I think the caste system is lame, and I think Hindu doctrine played a large role in allowing it to happen.


...All that being accounted for, I think it's generally superior to western religions.

Atman , Brahman, moxa, nirvANa are abstract terms beyond the senses and the mind. Is it any wonder that people are arguiing over their nature? They are worth a discussion only after knowing their nature, but then there are no debates at that level. That is why the people spend their time in arguments and will never reach any conclusion. They dont reach any conclusions because we simply dont even understand what these entities are at the mundane level of consciousness. Can we talk about the nature of 4D or 5D entities and have a productive debate? How about entities that are dimensionless, or infinite dimensioned or even beyond such notions?

 

[rahul_sharma]

Yes, but Christians all worship the same God. Hindus, however, worship various gods, one god or all gods.

Hindus doing that are not contradicting basic belief of their religion that makes them Hindu. Changing names according to functions, don't actually change GOD.

Until defination of God and gods as understood from abrahmic religions will be applied on Hinduism, you will never understand "nature of God" in Hinduism.

There are millions of functional parts in our body. Scientists have defined them all according to their functions.

In spiritual terms:
Body --is Brahman
Functions of body--are gods.

Hinduism gives you freedom of three types:

1) Ignore millions of functions and just concentrate on body as whole (Just like Islam and Christianity). Hindus have the spiritual knowledge of all functions of Allah/The Father unlike just concentrating on name and discarding everything else. We are still free to ignore all functions while worship. This would be the worship of Nirguna Brahman.

2) Concentrate on that function that attracts you most. Like worshiping Durga resembles energy, Saraswati resembles knowledge, Vishnu resembles protection, Shiva resembles destructive function etc.

3) Concentrate on all functions of body like worshipping all Gods. MOST MISUNDERSTOOD. This would become polytheism and wrong, the moment we forget that these all functions are actually coming from one body. Bhagvad Gita warns against that!

Hindus are from all three categories. By doing that they are in no way contradicting one another as all three are valid paths in Hinduism unlike Christians and muslims who have just one path.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Isn't "Hinduism" more like an overarching term to describe a large variety of Indian philosophies and religions? Sure, they do have enough in common to merit describing them under the same label, but at the same time, they're widely diverse: from panentheist philosophers debating the nature of reality to simple peasants making offerings to appease some river deity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Isn't "Hinduism" more like an overarching term to describe a large variety of Indian philosophies and religions? Sure, they do have enough in common to merit describing them under the same level, but at the same time, they're widely diverse: from panentheist philosophers debating the nature of reality to simple peasants making offerings to appease some river deity.

Even more than that, from what I hear. There is an atheistic school of thought that is also taken by Hindus to be under the umbrella of Hinduism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Yahya Snow]

I think of polytheism straight away.

I also think of India.

I cannot say I have ever really studied it

 

[Penumbra]

Even more than that, from what I hear. There is an atheistic school of thought that is also taken by Hindus to be under the umbrella of Hinduism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Which one is that?

 

[Yahya Snow]

Is Hinduism on the decline or is it getting more popualr?

 

[français]

I think it is growing in population, though a lot of that has to be attributed to India's high birth rate. In terms of converts, I don't think it's growing too fast, though it is still not uncommon to see a Hindu Convert these days.

 

[rahul_sharma]

Which one is that?

Carvaka philosophical school.

 

[rahul_sharma]

Unlike other religions where Atheists and religions reject each other, many Atheists in Hinduism have done for Hinduism which is unbelievable for their counterparts produced from other religions. It might be difficult to understand from Western/Abrahmic view of Atheists and Atheism.

I will give you an example of Veer Savarkar (Hindu Atheist) who was president of Hindu Mahasabha. He is credited for developing a Hindu nationalist political ideology which he termed as Hindutva (Hinduness), a very famous term today. His political ideology has taken the shape of BJP , India's oppostion Hindu nationalist party and Hindu intellectual machinery of RSS , largest socio-cultural-religious org. in the world.