あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]surgeanaconda -6 ポイント-5 ポイント  (53子コメント)

Well considering that so many scriptures have discussed how there is only one Brahman, this woman is wrong fundamentally about Hinduism. Hinduism IS monotheistic. There is one Brahman. Just because there are stories that indicate polytheism (which make up the lower levels of spiritual comprehension and understanding) does not mean that there is not still one Brahman. Ask even the most illiterate Hindu and they will tell you that it is all Brahman. This is one of the first questions that Hindu children ask and thus one of the first answers that Hindu parents give. This is just part of the usual plot to divide Hindus and divide India. Hindus have done a good enough job dividing themselves (Vaishnavites vs Shaivaites, for example); we don't need outside "scholars" to butt in and make it worse.

[–]surgeanaconda 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Namaste Everyone,

I just want to first note that I am myself a novice with Hinduism (I'm young, for starters) and that I never intended to offend anyone regarding their beliefs. I meant my comments to incite a debate because it is a fundamental question that is asked of Hinduism time and time again and one that is, in my opinion, considered wrongly.

Here's why I do not understand how one can practice Hinduism and also believe in polytheism.

If there are many gods, which is of course the definition of polytheism, I ask: why does it say in scripture that there is an Atman within every being in the universe? Why does it say that Brahman is everywhere? After all, here is the problem: how does one define God? For argument's sake, let's take God to be the Primal Force, which is the original threshold that was crossed or is crossed for any action to happen in the Universe. What importance does God have in our lives (why do we need or, perhaps, want religion in our lives)? Do we not want God because we want a higher power to attain, something that will help us detach our earthly, material egos and lose attachment to the Maya of the world? Thus, how can we make such a sharp distinction between, say, Ganesha and Shiva? After all, do these gods not have egos of their own? Exhibit A: the story of how Ganesha got his Elephant head.

Second, I ask: Do we not anthropomorphize God if we are to be polytheistic? And does that not simply indicate us projecting our Ego's onto the Primal Force?

Again, I ask because I do not know. I think I might know, and so this is why I was so disenchanted with Hinduism for so long (I was born into a conservative Hindu family). However, it was only after reading about the idea of the Brahman and the Atman that things began to make the smallest of sense to me, including the Puranas.

Please, I really do not intend offense to anyone here. Rather, I am trying to make sense of Dharma rigorously, using Scripture and Logic as my basis, not my Material Ego.

Thank You, Everyone.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Do we not anthropomorphize God if we are to be polytheistic?

Jewish Rabbis like Maimonides argued against anthrophomorphists of their own religion..And we would all be the last people to think that a Jew of any stripe could be a polytheist.

Why does it say that Brahman is everywhere?

Brahman(impersonal) is only one of the aspects of Krishna.We Vaishnavas tend to dismiss/ignore Shaiva/other puranas or texts that do not fit into our theology.

What you are finding is a very simplified version of advaita,and assuming that all 'Hindus' believe in that. Read up on theologians like Madhva,Ramanuja,Nimbarka,Caitanya's followers,who presented views different from Sankara's.

[–]surgeanaconda 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I have only ever read the Gita and very little of Swami Vivekananda's works. I've also read bits of scripture but have never undergone a formal (or neo-formal) education with the scriptures.

Also, I don't understand the idea that Shaivism and Vaishnavism could contradict each other. Aren't they just two paths that lead to the same, ultimate goal? After all, doesn't Rama (Vishnu) pray to Shiva in the Ramayana? And doesn't Shiva pray to Vishnu whenever dharma is weak on Earth? Doesn't Shiva also instruct regarding Brahman, since he is the knower of the 4 vedas, in which the Brahman is discussed as the primal force? Or am I just completely wrong here? haha

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Aren't they just two paths that lead to the same, ultimate goal?

Again,something only advaita-addled folks will say.

For us Vaishnavas, Shiva is Vishnu-kinkara,one of the foremost servants of Sri Vishnu—he is called Rudra(one who cried) because at his birth,he cried to know what is the nama of that Supreme Person who manifests within us as Paramatma,Sri Narayana.

[–]ilikepunnythreads 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

For us Vaishnavas, Shiva is Vishnu-kinkara,one of the foremost servants of Sri Vishnu—he is called Rudra(one who cried) because at his birth,he cried to know what is the nama of that Supreme Person who manifests within us as Paramatma,Sri Narayana.

No offense, but you guys have really, really shitty explanations of the divine names.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's a really nice compliment, after what all the guys from the school of thought which spawned ours, said regarding your kind( like prayers indicating that nondevotee hands should be cut off and stuff like that).

[–]ilikepunnythreads -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

He we all have different jobs. Our job is being right, the dvaitins job is ranting and insulting, and you guys have the job of having retconning your theology everywhere.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What about Sri Vaishnavas and followers of Nimbarka?

[–]ilikepunnythreads 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I like Sri Vaishnavism, and don't really understand how dvaitadvaita is supposed to work

[–]hinduismtwResident Troll 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Damnit...I didn't want to get into this thread...

rOdanaM rut | 'rudir dhAtoH bhAve kvip' | athavA rudaMtyanena iti rudir dhAtoH karaNe kvip | tathA cha rudaM duHkhaM tatsAdhanaM vA drAvayati iti rudraH ||

  • shAMkara bhAshya

/u/brought_ 's school didn't come up with it.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]hinduismtwResident Troll 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. I am speechless...

[–]ilikepunnythreads 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dude you can't just throw in a verse without a pada or adhikarana. I don't have the whole thing memorised in Sanskrit. As it is, my problem wasn't with the etymology of the word, it was with the silliness about Sri Rudra crying to know the name of Sri Narayana.

And why not join the thread? Grab some mud and start slinging.

[–]hinduismtwResident Troll 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

it was with the silliness about Sri Rudra crying

It goes something like after looking at the glorious creation and hearing Brahma extolling a diety using the vedas. He was overcome with bhakti and shed a tear and enquired who was the great being who was the being extolled ?

And why not join the thread? Grab some mud and start slinging.

No thanks, I will leave it to you guys to duke it out and watch from the sidelines.

[–]crusaderoflightSaiva Siddhantika 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For us shaivites we do know the story of Vishnu and Brahma , which is the first story of Siva purana. I wouldn't want to quote it to prove superiority because its accepted that Siva has told that Vishnu must be worshiped with equal status.

[–]crusaderoflightSaiva Siddhantika 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

BTW use of the word servent to describe Siva shows why there exists a conflict.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which will probably never be resolved.

[–]surgeanaconda 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Also, because their religious leaders argued against them, doesn't that make them wrong?

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

, doesn't that make them wrong?

No! Your idea of religion is some Ramakrishna-Mission and influences of 'Neo-Vedantic' styles of Hinduism,combined with American Christianity.

[–]surgeanaconda 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

My idea of religion is simple: - a set of principles to live by that allow me to achieve higher consciousness, to find the Ultimate Truth, and to ultimately find true fulfillment and happiness.

That is all I'm looking for. I believe that the idea of Vishnu or Shiva is just an idea. It's a beautiful idea, one with deep scientific roots (I really want to conduct a study to see what happens to our brain, via neuroimaging, when we hear ancient Vedic mantras such as the Vishnu Saharsanama, or simply "Om Namah Shivaya"). Yet, ultimately in my opinion it is an idea. That is why I believe any good-hearted person whose actions reflect their good nature will achieve moksha.

But fundamentally, I want a strong set of principles to live by, because I believe such discipline will allow me to focus my thoughts and energies and discover more and more about the Truth. At the end of the day, though, this is all semantics. I was just saying that I don't understand how polytheism can work if we believe there to be a primordial energy. That's why this is really just semantics. One person's definition of God can simply be different from another person's definition of God, and thus two people can believe in the same things and yet just call it two different things. It's kind of like how in higher level programming languages, the name that we give to a data in memory can be called anything, yet that data in memory is linked to hardware if you go deep enough into the computer.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

one with deep scientific roots

Religion takes us to the supramundane,beyond even conceptions of "indian" (which you seem to be espousing),let alone,say,matter.

And science's activities are restricted to the material sphere,which is why linking religion with science is a fruitless endeavour.

One person's definition of God can simply be different from another person's definition of God, and thus two people can believe in the same things and yet just call it two different things. It's kind of like how in higher level programming languages, the name that we give to a data in memory can be called anything, yet that data in memory is linked to hardware if you go deep enough into the computer.

Again,you have implicit conceptions of Neo-Vedanta here. I would disagree.

[–]surgeanaconda -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The only reason that I bring up the idea of India is because I am disappointed with the fact that my ancestors allowed themselves to be divided and then conquered by the Muslims and the British. India has so much to offer to the world, and to itself, really, and I want to be an active player in helping India achieve its true potential. That's it. I want to be able to help Indians to feel some pride in the Holy Land of Bharat. That's all. Indians are not taught so much about their own history. Hindus are not taught so much about their own history. The majority of Hindus, in fact, are taught nothing regarding Hinduism. They just pick up their parents' habits, it seems. And most of modern-day Hinduism has become simply: "here do this puja and God will give you a bunch of money". To me, the idea of asking God for wealth is just so counterintuitive. That's why I "espouse" the conception of India, which is fundamentally a country that is defined by Hinduism. And I personally believe that Hinduism is the root of all major world religions because there can only be one truth. And if a Christian believes that his religion is the root of all major world religions, I would not refute him because as long as he is living his life in accordance with the Truth, then he is not wrong. (same goes with all other faiths)

But can you please explain how I have "implicit conceptions of Neo-Vedanta"? And why that would be a wrong thing with regard to developing an understanding of the Self and the Truth?

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's why I "espouse" the conception of India, which is fundamentally a country that is defined by Hinduism.

It is. I've heard similar things from Armenian nationalists

I am disappointed with the fact that my ancestors allowed themselves to be divided and then conquered by the Muslims and the British. India has so much to offer to the world

Replace 'India' with Armenia'. Things like this are the equivalent of frogs croaking how great their wells are.

I have "implicit conceptions of Neo-Vedanta"?

In believing stuff like: "Aren't they just two paths that lead to the same, ultimate goal? "

You are fundamentally,very,very wrong in the eyes of all the traditional acharyas. This conception was started 'all paths lead to the same truth' by Ramkrishna.

You know that Rig Veda Verse 'Truth is one,sages call it by different names'? (Which people cite to show that all paths are the same)It actually means that Krishna,parabrahman,who is singular,is like an opal,vaidurya(that verse about how different people saw him in different ways comes to my mind).

[–]surgeanaconda -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Haha you just compared me to an Armenian nationalist? You're not in any way substantiating your claims.. just using ad hominem, which is not how one can reliably form philosophical argument. It's not wrong to have pride in one's country and to hope to build the country into a better one.

Your last paragraph proved my point.

[–]SwadhisthanaShaktaa 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Take a look at your own biases. Why is "monotheism" superior to "polytheism"?
Is it because we are trying to imitate the Abrahamic faiths?

Hindu is monotheistic.. and polytheistic.. and pantheistic.. and atheistics.. and mystical.. and shamanic.. and a whole host of other things under the great banyan tree of our Dharma.

[–]surgeanaconda -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (16子コメント)

It's not "superior". Rather, it is more logical and Hinduism is ultimately a science (metaphysical, yes, but a science no less). Please read my comment below for my rebuttal/questions. Thank You.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

it is more logical

It can be argued that polytheism can be a far better solution(than the complicated hoops in monotheism) to the Problem of Evil.

Hinduism is ultimately a science (metaphysical

Do you even know what 'metaphysics' is? (I kinda hate how New-Agers have hijacked that word). That term is applied to any enquiry that raises questions about reality that lie beyond or behind those capable of being tackled by the methods of science.Topics raised in metaphysics tend to be:

  • What is there in the world?
  • How can one thing change into another?
  • What is motion?
  • Is there a first cause?
  • What are the fundamental categories that describe the world?
  • Does materialism fully account for the world?
  • Do things exist, or are they just ideas and projections in our minds?
  • What is required for something to exist?

This is a good introductory article.

[–]surgeanaconda 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (14子コメント)

(1) Does Hinduism really believe anything else is "Evil"? Rather does it not say in the Gita that Maya is everywhere, that it is a product of the Lord and thus is not something to hate, which is what the emotion one would put towards evil? It's instead just a conflict between the Ego and the Self, right? This is what I understood from my very rudimentary read through of the Gita. (2) Right, sorry, I should have said that Hinduism incorporates metaphysical elements into a physical science. For example, astrology has a physical basis that can be readily verified. Also, vaasthu uses the magnetic field of the Earth and other observable, natural patterns to figure out the optimal design and construction of buildings. Am I wrong? Also, ayurveda has a physical and metaphysical component to it.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (13子コメント)

It's instead just a conflict between the Ego and the Self, right?

Not at all. Someone can get rid of the mayic influence by taking shelter in Krishna,in the same way thieves do not approach someone who is under protection of the king.

metaphysical elements into a physical science. For example, astrology has a physical basis that can be readily verified. Also, vaasthu uses the magnetic field of the Earth and other observable, natural patterns to figure out the optimal design and construction of buildings. Am I wrong? Also, ayurveda has a physical and metaphysical component to it.

Astrologers are totally bunkum(not astrology,it is a part of the Veda)—even the so called 'Vedic' ones.

And 'vaasthu'—I would limit it to temple construction.

Also,most of Ayurveda has been too much irreversibly lost.

[–]surgeanaconda 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Can you prove that most of Ayruveda has been irreversibly lost? The key word being "irreversibly". I personally believe that we as Indians will rediscover it. Also, does the Gita not say that Maya is itself a creation of Vishnu? Thus, how can one escape something by running towards it?

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Also, does the Gita not say that Maya is itself a creation of Vishnu? Thus, how can one escape something by running towards it?

Thieves are also citizens of the kingdom.

[–]surgeanaconda 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

In this case, though, your analogy simply does not work. Thieves are not crafted by Kings. Whereas Maya is a part of Krishna (right?. Again I've just started reading about this stuff, and this idea that Maya is also created by Krishna to me kind of explained the idea of evil in the world.. because it simply bypasses it by saying there really is no true "evil". Rather it's just overindulgence

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

this idea that Maya is also created by Krishna to me kind of explained the idea of evil in the world.. because it simply bypasses it by saying there really is no true "evil".

Which is nonsense.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

it is all Brahman

All abheda?If you are implying so,it is just an advaitic perspective.

IS monotheistic

It is pretty denigrating to those of us who insist on henotheism as 'lower levels of spiritual comprehension and understanding'.(Of course,this is qualified by what is jiva-tattva,krishna-tattva,and all that). It is you who are creating a division(by ignoring other perspectives and putting yours as the only 'Hindu' perspective).

I agree with what shannondoah has said regarding Doninger,though.

[–]TurboVodka 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Popular Hinduism is more along the lines of Pantheism or Panetheism, not Monotheism.

[–]surgeanaconda -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yes, and popular Islam in some parts of the world is essentially Jihad. That does not, and should not, allow Jihad to define Islam.

[–]TurboVodka 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That does not, and should not, allow Jihad to define Islam.

Why not? If a religion holds something as a core tenet why shouldn't it help define that religion? (Granted, you're probably going to have to tack on a few adjectives before the characterization becomes fair. i.e. Jihad and nation building more or less defines the radical middle eastern Islam that ISIS adheres to but not global Islam.)

[–]surgeanaconda 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Islam does not hold terrorism as a core tenent. Most Muslim scholars interpret Jihad to be a personal struggle, man fighting a war within himeslf (not unlike the personal struggle between the Ego and the Self in Hinduism).

[–]TurboVodka 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Islam does not hold terrorism as a core tenent.

Which Islam? Are you talking about the Islam you've been exposed to? Then you're probably correct. Or do you mean the flavor of Islam ISIS is teaching? Then I disagree with you, because they're calling acts of terrorism Jihad.

[–]brought_Gaudiya Vaishnava / গৌড়ীয় বৈষ্ণব. Also,Troll Admirer. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Middle Eastern Islam,sadly,though...

[–]surgeanaconda 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But that's not as much religious as it is economic, political, etc. I would place most of the blame for Islamic terrorism on the West.