What do you think of Hinduism?

[indianx]

If facts are insulting, they need different facts.



I heard an untouchable interviewed in a documentary and he said "They treat us like filthy animals". He said he and his wife and children are not allowed to even walk on certain streets in a nearby city. Is moksha somehow a justification for that? Reminds me of that Bill Murray line from Caddyshack: "So I got that goin' for me."

I agree that the caste system is a social evil that blights Indian society. I believe that it is the responsibility of ordinary Hindus and Hindu service organizations to work towards eradicating this system. I don't think the caste system as it has existed since the arrival of the Mughals and the British on the subcontinent is representative of the ideals that Hinduism stands for. This is a religion that posits that every soul, every human, every animal soul is part of Brahman. There cannot be tiers of 'castes.' As I said earlier, the caste system is a problem that has permeated the entire subcontinent (and I daresay that such caste or class distinctions, in various forms, affict other societies too), regardless of religion.

The BBC, as recently as last month, published a report on a village in India, one in which Christians are the majority, where a 'higher' caste of Christians denied a 'lower' caste of Christians the right to visit the village church through the main street used by the higher caste. The villagers of the lower caste had to use a side street. They were not allowed to even touch the Christians of the higher caste, nor were they allowed to be buried in the same cemetery. Here is a link to the report: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Bigotry alive for Christian Dalits

This problem also exists to a certain extent within Muslim communities. My point here is that converting to Christianity has not made their lives better, because this is not a problem limited to the Indian Hindu community. I should add that the Balinese Hindu community, which has existed since before the 4th century, has handled the caste system to much better effect than its Indian counterpart.

I said "traditional" practices. But...they stopped burning innocent widows to death as early as 1987? A.D.? Within my lifetime even. Wow, I uh...don't know what to say. "Thank you India"?

Even when the practice of sati was at its highest point of prevalence, it was not practiced beyond certain regions of the subcontinent. It was most common in Bengal and Rajasthan. The earliest British records in the Bengal Presidency from 1813 state that somewhere around 500 incidents of sati took place on average each year. The total population of the Presidency numbered over 50 million. You can calculate the percentages of frequency yourself. Since 1947, there have been close to 40 cases of sati. Considering the magnitude of the Indian population, I would say that reflects a decent record, although even one is one too many.

As you said, this is a thread about Hinduism and not Christianity, but I can assure you that there have been significantly less cases of sati in India than there have been cases of children being sodomized by Christian priests in America. My point here is that if you look to the historical and current social problems that afflict nations to cast dispersions against the religions that dominate those nations, then Christianity has a far worse record than Hinduism or Buddhism or even Islam, for that matter.

 

[Eudaimonist]

An atheist gives religion a thumbs up?

Why not? Atheist =/= anti-theist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

I agree that the caste system is a social evil that blights Indian society. I believe that it is the responsibility of ordinary Hindus and Hindu service organizations to work towards eradicating this system. I don't think the caste system as it has existed since the arrival of the Mughals and the British on the subcontinent is representative of the ideals that Hinduism stands for. This is a religion that posits that every soul, every human, every animal soul is part of Brahman. There cannot be tiers of 'castes.' As I said earlier, the caste system is a problem that has permeated the entire subcontinent (and I daresay that such caste or class distinctions, in various forms, affict other societies too), regardless of religion.

The BBC, as recently as last month, published a report on a village in India, one in which Christians are the majority, where a 'higher' caste of Christians denied a 'lower' caste of Christians the right to visit the village church through the main street used by the higher caste. The villagers of the lower caste had to use a side street. They were not allowed to even touch the Christians of the higher caste, nor were they allowed to be buried in the same cemetery. Here is a link to the report: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Bigotry alive for Christian Dalits

This problem also exists to a certain extent within Muslim communities. My point here is that converting to Christianity has not made their lives better, because this is not a problem limited to the Indian Hindu community. I should add that the Balinese Hindu community, which has existed since before the 4th century, has handled the caste system to much better effect than its Indian counterpart.

I agree they shouldn't still be doing that, but the idea for it derives from Hinduism; from their Hindu past, not from Christianity.

Even when the practice of sati was at its highest point of prevalence, it was not practiced beyond certain regions of the subcontinent. It was most common in Bengal and Rajasthan. The earliest British records in the Bengal Presidency from 1813 state that somewhere around 500 incidents of sati took place on average each year. The total population of the Presidency numbered over 50 million. You can calculate the percentages of frequency yourself. Since 1947, there have been close to 40 cases of sati. Considering the magnitude of the Indian population, I would say that reflects a decent record, although even one is one too many.

As you said, this is a thread about Hinduism and not Christianity, but I can assure you that there have been significantly less cases of sati in India than there have been cases of children being sodomized by Christian priests in America. My point here is that if you look to the historical and current social problems that afflict nations to cast dispersions against the religions that dominate those nations, then Christianity has a far worse record than Hinduism or Buddhism or even Islam, for that matter.

I don't know if what you say about the number of instances of sodomy is correct, but the comparison is nonsense. What matters is that molesting a child contradicts the Christian religion, and burning a widow conforms to the Hindu religion. Likewise, if a Christian man raped a woman, he would be breaking the moral "rules" of Christianity, but there is a sacred Hindu text which says women should be violently raped. All the difference in the world.

And I'm not attacking Hindu or Indian people. For all I know, at any point in time the average Hindu man might be a better moral person than the average Christian man. I'm only talking about some holdings of our respective faiths.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

If facts are insulting, they need different facts.

The fact remains, Chesterton, that Sati is not legal in modern Indian and passages in the ancient Vedas condemn the practice even then.

I heard an untouchable interviewed in a documentary and he said "They treat us like filthy animals". He said he and his wife and children are not allowed to even walk on certain streets in a nearby city. Is moksha somehow a justification for that? Reminds me of that Bill Murray line from Caddyshack: "So I got that goin' for me."

No, moksha isn't a justification for that; it couldn't be! It merely means ''to reach enlightenment/liberation''. The fact that India has untouchables is very troubling and one of the reasons why many ideas do not like Brahmins. It must be pointed out that a great many Vaishnavite leaders, such as His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, criticize the idea of this form of caste system.

Anyway, for years Christianity was used to support slavery and racism. I smell hypocrisy again.

Chesterton, why not give up? You make no good points in these threads because you are ignorant of other religions and just come across as a child looking for fights.

I said "traditional" practices. But...they stopped burning innocent widows to death as early as 1987? A.D.? Within my lifetime even. Wow, I uh...don't know what to say. "Thank you India"?

Christians stoning women? You're really knowledgeable.

Middle-Eastern Christians, like Jews, did stone women and in the Old Testament laws of Noah, rape victims are to be stoned if they do not cry,

But yes, burning of thousands of innocent women and men at the stake is more a Christian ''tradition'' as are the inquisitions. The massacre of Jews and heathens, the desecration of heathen shrines and the death penalty are also Christian ''traditions''.

And as I have stated before, you have NO right to say that I have no knowledge of your believe system when you have little knowledge of Hinduism, Buddhism and heathenism; all of which you has attacked in your usual childish, antagonistic manner. You are quite clearly looking for a fight which you will lose because your brand of Christianity doesn't hold water itself.

This is a thread about Hinduism. Can you at least save the Christianty bashing for threads about Christianity? Better yet, just stop bashing, and discuss things.

Nope. If you continue to look for a fight by making absurd claims about others faiths, then I will continue to point out your hypocrisy, ignorance and hostility.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Shinto temples are beautiful.

Indeed, they are very beautiful.

 

[indianx]

I agree they shouldn't still be doing that, but the idea for it derives from Hinduism; from their Hindu past, not from Christianity.

I would argue that their practices do not derive from the religion itself. They simply cannot be reconciled with a religion that posits that every soul, from that of a human to that of the most insignificant insect, is a part of Brahman. The caste system, in the perverted form it has developed, cannot be justified. To state that the problems that exist in India today as a result of caste conflict are derived from Hinduism is equivalent, from a historical perspective, to stating that the problems relating to race conflict that afflicted America until the civil rights movement were derived from Christianity. Those who held power in Indian society, the Brahmins, usurped parts of the Hindu scripture to preserve their social hegemony over the rest of society. This is hardly different from the slave-owners of the South appealing to the Bible as justification to preserve slavery. The conditions that blacks faced before the sixties are remarkably similar to those faced by the Dalits today. India has to undergo a social upheaval of the type that America experienced in the sixties. The people in power, the elites of Indian society, have to be forced to understand that their claim over that power is an illegitimate, unwarranted one. To frame this as a debate between religions and to use it as fodder for purposes of conversion without solving the problem itself has only furthered the divisions within Indian society. It's a problem that Indians of all religions are going to have to resolve now, and it cannot be done without them working in conjunction.

burning a widow conforms to the Hindu religion

You are incorrect. The practice of sati does not conform to the Hindu religion. It was hardly known on the subcontinent until the emergence of the Gupta empire. The practice of sati among the Rajputs in Rajasthan, for example, had no relation to religion. The women of men slain in a lost war would commit suicide rather than face humiliation under the enemy. As another example, one of the somewhat more notable occurrences of sati in the domain of the Vijayanagara empire took place after the empire faced its end at the hand of the Muslim sultanates in the Battle of Talikota.

The word 'sati' itself refers to a goddess who performed self-immolation in order to rebuke her father's arrogance and condemnation of Lord Shiva. It has nothing to do with the practice that it is now associated with. There were prominent saintly critics of the practice before the Mughals and the British arrived in India. The Alvars, for example, denounced the practice.

As for your comment that there exist Hindu texts which state that "women should be violently raped", I doubt its veracity. To be true, I have not read the entirety of the Hindu scriptures, and if you were to post an obscure reference in the form of some indeterminate passage, I would hope that another, more well-versed among my brethren here could better explain its context. What I do know is that Hinduism reveres many goddesses. A religion that worships the divinity in the form of a female cannot reconcile such a practice.

Also, I simply typed in "rape in the bible" in google, and found many sources that argue to the contrary of your statement. Since I have not read the Bible myself in many years and do not have the proper historical or contextual understanding of the text to pass a judgement of the type you have against Hinduism, I will refrain from commenting further on this subject for the moment.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

I agree they shouldn't still be doing that, but the idea for it derives from Hinduism; from their Hindu past, not from Christianity.

Actually the ancient ''caste system'' was very different from its more modern form, as many Vaishnavites point out. The original ''castes'' were merely job-types and the equality of recent years was not tied in with them. The ''caste'' that became the untouchables were merely those concerned with cleaning streets, touching dead bodies etc.

I don't know if what you say about the number of instances of sodomy is correct, but the comparison is nonsense. What matters is that molesting a child contradicts the Christian religion, and burning a widow conforms to the Hindu religion.

Actually, the only argument in the Vedas that supports Sati is in truth is a mis-understanding of:

"इमा नारीरविधवाः सुपत्नीराञ्जनेन सर्पिषा संविशन्तु
अनश्रवो.अनमीवाः सुरत्ना आ रोहन्तु जनयोयोनिमग्रे

उदीर्ष्व नार्यभि जीवलोकं गतासुमेतमुप शेष एहि
हस्तग्राभस्य दिधिषोस्तवेदं पत्युर्जनित्वमभि सम्बभूथ " (RV 10.18.7 and RV 10.18.8)

"Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living, enter the house with ghee applied to their eyes. Let these wives first step into the yoni (Ed. Note: house or where the dead body is placed), tearless without any affliction and well adorned.

Rise, come unto the world of life, O woman — come, he is lifeless by whose side thou liest. Wifehood with this thy husband was thy portion, who took thy hand and wooed thee as a lover"

Likewise, if a Christian man raped a woman, he would be breaking the moral "rules" of Christianity, but there is a sacred Hindu text which says women should be violently raped. All the difference in the world.

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:15-18

And I'm not attacking Hindu or Indian people.

All you do in this forum is attack non-Christians. You are very transparant; your aggression and hostility is as noticeable as a cashew nut in a clear glass of water!

For all I know, at any point in time the average Hindu man might be a better moral person than the average Christian man. I'm only talking about some holdings of our respective faiths.

As we are talking about the holdings of our respective faiths, then we are also permitted to point out the hypocrisy in yoru words. You argue that Hindu scriptures advocate rape and hatred to women, yet the Old Testament is filled with hatred to women, genocides and rape and the New Testament is exceedingly sexist also.

You claim that out-dated practices which were common in a more primitive time are Hindu ''traditions'' yet Christianity has its ''traditions'' of violence, social injustice, sexism and violence also.

You just come across as very hypocritical.

 

[rahul_sharma]

burning a widow conforms to the Hindu religion

What!!



molesting a child inside church conforms to which religion?

???

​

 

[Chesterton]

I would argue that their practices do not derive from the religion itself.

If sati, which AFAIK is/was exclusive to Hindus, does not derive from Hinduism, then even less does slavery derive from Christianity. In fact, slavery does not all all derive from Christianity. Slavery has been practiced before there was Christianity, and outside of Christian cultures. So when you say below that they are equivalent, I disagree.

They simply cannot be reconciled with a religion that posits that every soul, from that of a human to that of the most insignificant insect, is a part of Brahman. The caste system, in the perverted form it has developed, cannot be justified. To state that the problems that exist in India today as a result of caste conflict are derived from Hinduism is equivalent, from a historical perspective, to stating that the problems relating to race conflict that afflicted America until the civil rights movement were derived from Christianity. Those who held power in Indian society, the Brahmins, usurped parts of the Hindu scripture to preserve their social hegemony over the rest of society. This is hardly different from the slave-owners of the South appealing to the Bible as justification to preserve slavery. The conditions that blacks faced before the sixties are remarkably similar to those faced by the Dalits today. India has to undergo a social upheaval of the type that America experienced in the sixties. The people in power, the elites of Indian society, have to be forced to understand that their claim over that power is an illegitimate, unwarranted one. To frame this as a debate between religions and to use it as fodder for purposes of conversion without solving the problem itself has only furthered the divisions within Indian society. It's a problem that Indians of all religions are going to have to resolve now, and it cannot be done without them working in conjunction.

You are incorrect. The practice of sati does not conform to the Hindu religion. It was hardly known on the subcontinent until the emergence of the Gupta empire. The practice of sati among the Rajputs in Rajasthan, for example, had no relation to religion. The women of men slain in a lost war would commit suicide rather than face humiliation under the enemy. As another example, one of the somewhat more notable occurrences of sati in the domain of the Vijayanagara empire took place after the empire faced its end at the hand of the Muslim sultanates in the Battle of Talikota.

The word 'sati' itself refers to a goddess who performed self-immolation in order to rebuke her father's arrogance and condemnation of Lord Shiva. It has nothing to do with the practice that it is now associated with. There were prominent saintly critics of the practice before the Mughals and the British arrived in India. The Alvars, for example, denounced the practice.

I'll take your word that what you say above is true. But the fact remains that sati was not practiced in Bhuddist lands, Christian lands, etc. It was practiced among Hindus. Whereas, the things people sometimes accuse Christianity of, such as slavery and sexism, were practiced by all humanity.

As for your comment that there exist Hindu texts which state that "women should be violently raped", I doubt its veracity. To be true, I have not read the entirety of the Hindu scriptures, and if you were to post an obscure reference in the form of some indeterminate passage, I would hope that another, more well-versed among my brethren here could better explain its context. What I do know is that Hinduism reveres many goddesses. A religion that worships the divinity in the form of a female cannot reconcile such a practice.

I've posted the contents of the rape verses in a previous NCR thread on Hinduism. I've posted web citations to other verses (regarding such things as bestiality) when the actual content was too graphic and offensive to reproduce here. I received answers from Hindus which were evasive and unsatisfactory. To be fair, I won't take a couple of bad answers as definitive; just as there are many Christians here and probably not a single genuine Christian theologian, I know there is even less chance of a Hindu "expert" being here.

Also, I simply typed in "rape in the bible" in google, and found many sources that argue to the contrary of your statement. Since I have not read the Bible myself in many years and do not have the proper historical or contextual understanding of the text to pass a judgement of the type you have against Hinduism, I will refrain from commenting further on this subject for the moment.

Jews do not call the "Old Testament" the "Old Testament". Christians do, and there's a reason we call it that: it's the old thing, we do not follow it like a manual, and we don't believe it was intended to be a manual.

Nope. If you continue to look for a fight by making absurd claims about others faiths, then I will continue to point out your hypocrisy, ignorance and hostility.

Never mind that this is part of Christian Forums; even if these were completely neutral forums, am I supposed to lie and say "Yes, Odin was a real person" just to avoiding hurting the feelings of Germanic heathens? Am I supposed to lie and say "Yes, Hinduism is all peaches and cream" just to avoid offending Hindus? That's not what discussion forums are for. Does anyone come into these forums simply to hear their own ideas echoed? I know I dont, and I mostly get static from non-Christians. Please stop calling me a bad person for disagreeing with others. I'll agree with others when I agree, and I'll disagree when I disagree. And everyone should do the same without being called names for it. If you want to attack my ideas I welcome that (if I'm wrong, I'd like to find out), but please stop attacking me.

 

[indianx]

If sati, which AFAIK is/was exclusive to Hindus, does not derive from Hinduism, then even less does slavery derive from Christianity. In fact, slavery does not all all derive from Christianity. Slavery has been practiced before there was Christianity, and outside of Christian cultures. So when you say below that they are equivalent, I disagree.

I'll take your word that what you say above is true. But the fact remains that sati was not practiced in Bhuddist lands, Christian lands, etc. It was practiced among Hindus. Whereas, the things people sometimes accuse Christianity of, such as slavery and sexism, were practiced by all humanity.

The practice of self-immolation by widows was not exclusive to certain Hindu communities. There is one prominent account of such a practice occurring among the Volga Vikings. It was written by the Muslim chronicler Ahmad ibn Fadlan in the 10th century. Here is a link to an excerpt from his account in which he details the funeral customs of the Vikings: www.scandinavian.wisc.edu/mellor/myth/pdf_files/ibnFadlan.pdf. Also, the practice did not occur in all Hindu communities.

Though slavery did exist before Christianity was created, the fact still remains that those who held power in the South appealed to Biblical passages as justification to preserve slavery. I did not equate this to sati, rather I stated that it was equivalent to those who held power in Indian society, the Brahmins, usurping passages within Hindu scripture to preserve their hegemony over the rest of Indian society.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Never mind that this is part of Christian Forums; even if these were completely neutral forums, am I supposed to lie and say "Yes, Odin was a real person" just to avoiding hurting the feelings of Germanic heathens?

Nope, but you were clearly looking for an argument, as you often do. There was no need for you to even reply to that thread. You are merely looking for arguments and hostility and then you play the innocent. It is absurd and childish.

And it doesn't matter if this is a Christian forum, this is board is for the polite discussion of other faith systems. Just because it is a Christian message board, it does not give you the right to attack other belief systems; debates are acceptable, your religious-inspired flaming isn't.

Please stop calling me a bad person for disagreeing with others. I'll agree with others when I agree, and I'll disagree when I disagree.

I am not calling you a bad person, however, you are practicing hypocrisy, bigotry and ignorance; which are certainlt bad traits.

You are NOT simple disagreeing with others, you know that. Your aim in the non-Christian section of this site is to offend non-Christians; you post ridiculous threads that are nothing to do with non-Christian religions (your 'Book of Enocn' threads spring to mind) as if they are true and you make pointless comments like "Oh, I didn't know that this thread was about a fictional character''; that isn't a simple debate but an offensive comment and filled with hypocrisy like most of your posts in this section.

Just because we non-Christians are the minority on this board (and we are only hear to clear up misinformation about our faiths), that doesn't mean that we should be treated with disrespect. Infact, most of our belief system has caused more harm than your religion, so you denigrating of other religions as barbaric and violent is laughable.

And everyone should do the same without being called names for it. If you want to attack my ideas I welcome that (if I'm wrong, I'd like to find out), but please stop attacking me.

I am not attacking you but when someone criticizes a religion for being violent whilst following a religion that many (including historians) find to be pro-violence is hypocritical. Therefore I think you are being a hypocrite and it is within my right to; and infact I have given examples why rather than just calling you a hypocrite; infact you are being a hypocrite but that doesn't mean that you necessarily are a hypocrite.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Though slavery did exist before Christianity was created, the fact still remains that those who held power in the South appealed to Biblical passages as justification to preserve slavery.

The modern slave-trade was also started by Christians, so they should not be held blameless. Regardless of whether slavery existed before Christianity, some parts of the Christian doctrine do seem to support slavery:

"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." (Titus 2:9-10)"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (1 Peter 2:18)

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

Also the Christian doctrine does seem to support injustice and cruelty to non-Christians:

""Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (2 Cor. 6:14-17)

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 7)

And in the Old Testament:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

So, most of Chesterton's criticism of Hinduism could be used to criticize Christianity.

 

[rainycity]

hinduism clearly and openly debunks itself.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

I am creating this thread just to know and understand your views and impressions about Hinduism. What do you think of this ancient and third largest world religion with billion adherents.

1) What do you like in this religion, what you don't like, what look strange to you, any concept that attracts you most or any concept that you think is very difficult to grab.

2) and what do you think about your level of knowledge related to Hinduism. Have you really study Hinduism or your good, bad and confused impressions/Views are because of media, friends and gossips?

What do I think of Hinduism? I think it's wrong. That's it.

 

[Sphinx777]

hinduism clearly and openly debunks itself.

What do I think of Hinduism? I think it's wrong. That's it.

Details, my friends, details...

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

The devil is in the details, so to speak.

 

[franklin]

I am creating this thread just to know and understand your views and impressions about Hinduism. What do you think of this ancient and third largest world religion with billion adherents.

1) What do you like in this religion, what you don't like, what look strange to you, any concept that attracts you most or any concept that you think is very difficult to grab.

2) and what do you think about your level of knowledge related to Hinduism. Have you really study Hinduism or your good, bad and confused impressions/Views are because of media, friends and gossips?

I have a friend who is a Hindu. A very nice guy with a great sense of humor. His name is Babu .

 

[rainycity]

Details, my friends, details...

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, bestiality 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.

 

[kaykay9.0]

I think there are some good concepts taught in probably all religions including Hinduism, but as a Christian, I believe the truth lies only in Christianity.

 

[franklin]

I think there are some good concepts taught in probably all religions including Hinduism, but as a Christian, I believe the truth lies only in Christianity.

Why do you believe that ?