Is Hinduism a lie?

[Guest guest]

A meat-eater is a Hindu. So is a vegetarian. A theist is a Hindu, so is an atheist. A monotheist is Hindu, as is a polytheist. Dualist is Hindu, as is monist. If everybody is Hindu, who REALLY is Hindu? Does it follow that there is no such thing as Hinduism? Take your own family, for instance. If you say that your father is a father, your mother is also a father, you are a father, your sister is also a father...does it not inevitably follow that the entity 'father' does not exist at all?

 

After all, an object, say water, is treated differently from a stone, because liquidity characterizes the former and solidity the latter. In short, an object exists by virtue of its features which distingush it from other objects. In the case of Hinduism, as in the family example, there is no distinguishing feature at all to separate it from the rest of them. So does it mean Hinduism is a lie? Please don't react violently, discuss politely amongst yourselves.

[Guest guest]

nobody ever said everyone is a hindu. that is not true. hinduism is a religion and not everyone in the world is following it, so it's not a correct statement. what they mean to say is that hinduism recognises each and every living being to be a material expression of the atman. atman exists in one and all, and each jiva in this world or universe falls into particular categories which are known trough hinduism. whereas a christian would say one who doesnt believe in jesus is a non christian, a hindu would say an aetheist is simply a person with tamasic nature or lower in the karmic chain perhaps. or a person who is a buddhist (for example) may be considered as a seeker of truth, however they may not directly be on the right path to understanding Brahman. in a sense we are all hindu's in that everything is taking in and absorbed by hinduism, there is nothing it cant explain, no category a person cannot fit into. it is true though, that there are conflicts in thought, such as dualism or monoism. but those that came up with said theories never denounced hinduism, they simply gave their own interpretation. hinduism is not a lie, it is basically a vast body of knowledge. it will depend on which stream of thought you wish to follow, that becomes true for you. either way, the say the end is the same though the means is different...

[Guest guest]

nobody ever said everyone is a hindu****

 

and

 

we are all hindu's***

 

Well, well, even speaking about Hinduism confuses you so much. lol. Anyway, what do you mean by Hinduism? Instead of giving vague definitions like "it is all about truth", "it is dharma" etc., can you give me something concrete to go with? If you say Hinduism accepts or recognizes all paths and so on, you must first tell me what Hinduism is. What is this thing called Hinduism which, according to you, accepts all paths?

[Guest guest]

These are excerpts from a message I posted in a thread

at the indiacause.com Forum on Nov 28, 2005.

 

Hinduism is a convenient, inclusive term encompassing the

best teachings and writings of all the great thinkers and

philosophers born on the Indian subcontinent. To put it

another way: It's the mother, the source and inspiration

of all Indic religions and philosophies.

 

In the matter of what you as a Hindu should believe,

you are on your own. Here from Buddhist texts is

the greatest passage in all the religious literature

of the world:

 

Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced

as the authority, believe not because it is your national

belief, believe not because you have been made to believe

from your childhood, but reason truth out, and after you

have analyzed it, then if you find it will do good to one

and all, believe it, live up to it and help others to live up to it.

[Guest guest]

you didnt catch the point..read again:

 

"nobody ever said everyone is a hindu. that is not true. hinduism is a religion and not everyone in the world is following it"

 

"(however) in a sense we are all hindu's in that everything is taking in and absorbed by hinduism"

 

emphasis on the expression "in a sense"...

[Guest guest]

to answer your question think about this. we adhere ourselves to that which we find to be true. a consistant and stable source of anything that provides nourishment for our mind. every hobby a person undertakes, every relationship a person is in, every religion a person follows, every action a person performs is one which the intention is to uncover or perhaps enforce emotional / spiritual growth. some things are detrimental to our being, some things are not. in hinduism, it is recognised that the root of everything lies in the soul. whether or not the expression of the soul as the atman (brahman) is to be regarded as absolute truth, or as a coercive method to enforce universality in all minds, that's something nobody will ever really know. the point of hinduism, the way i see it, is to bring back the soul to the foundations that keep it strong, to keep our minds stable, our thoughts 'true'. hinduism advocates equilibrium. our minds are the most powerful weopons, hinduism recognises that, and its philosophies are expansive enough to take in as well as counter almost everything, even itself so it would seem. you cant explain the nature of this giant. maybe you'd be better off trying to learn about the lives of emissaries of hinduism.

[Guest guest]

"A meat-eater is a Hindu. So is a vegetarian. A theist is a Hindu, so is an atheist. A monotheist is Hindu, as is a polytheist. Dualist is Hindu, as is monist. If everybody is Hindu, who REALLY is Hindu? Does it follow that there is no such thing as Hinduism? Take your own family, for instance. If you say that your father is a father, your mother is also a father, you are a father, your sister is also a father...does it not inevitably follow that the entity 'father' does not exist at all?

 

After all, an object, say water, is treated differently from a stone, because liquidity characterizes the former and solidity the latter. In short, an object exists by virtue of its features which distingush it from other objects. In the case of Hinduism, as in the family example, there is no distinguishing feature at all to separate it from the rest of them. So does it mean Hinduism is a lie? Please don't react violently, discuss politely amongst yourselves. "

 

That's a horrible analogy that does't get at Truth, it covers it with incorrect analogies.

 

All those people you described are Hindus, because Hinduism is the search for Truth. In all these philosophical dispositions, you'll find at least one aspect of Truth. No philosophy has complete ownership of Truth, but dvaitin, advaitin, vishistadvaitin, etc. have some elements of Truth to them.

 

It's like saying a Catholic is a Christian, a Protestant is a Christian, etc. This is a more appropriate analogy.

 

Hinduism is a very broad term, used to emphasize only common tenets that are held by all these groups, for instance the doctrine of karma, dharma, reincarnation, etc. It is an umbrella term, and Hinduism itself covers a very broad range of philosophies. Some even include the Charvaka system as a form of Hinduism (I don't though as it pretty much NEGATES everything Hindus stand for and believe in).

[ajit12]

One can distinguish Vedic religion which consists of carrying out Yagnyas for material things,worshipping of a few gods such as Indra,Vayu,Surya& yama etc.There were no temples or idols.Rigveda,Yajurveda & Samveda [which is essentially Rigveda] fall into this category.This Vedic religion does not exist anymore.

The next stage is Aryans & Vedic religion absorbing Non-aryan local religion.Shiv,Shakti,Ganesh were all gods which were absorbed into hinduism from non-aryan sources.When vedic religion spread to Bihar,Orissa & Bengal we find Tantra prevalent in that part of India getting absorbed into vedic religion.During this phase Castes & untouchablilty came into existance to keep those outside the vedic religion as second rate citizens.

Atharwaveda was composed during this period that is why for the first time you find muhurta,mantra,tantra m ,Jaaran-maaran,Jyotish and spells for varius maladies in Atharva Veda.

This was also the period during which a number of entire communites were absorbed wholesale into hinduism.A yagnya called Wratya stome was formulated for this by which entire communites were converted to hinduism rather vedic religion.This was the period of conversion into Hinduism contrary to populer belief However these communities retained and brought into hinduism their own social customs.

There were a number of communites which remained ouside the mainstream religion & were nevre absorbed.Adiwasis are an example of this.

The next stage is of Budhism and Jainism which caused Vedic religion to go into decline.The hindu brahmins then looked at budhism and incorpotaed budhist tenets into vedic religion wholesale such as temples [which are based on stupas],idol worship [again borrowed from Mahayan budhism],pooja rituals , taboo against nonveg food and stories about gods and godesses likes of mahayan budhism.This took form of puranas.This is more like the hinduism that we know today.

As hinduism had till then been on an absorbing and expanding spree therefore all communites have different social customs from the god to worship ,what to eat ,how & whom to marry.They were permitted to retain all this and then an overpatina of hinduism was laid on top of that.Therefore everyone is hindu.

The next stage came in 1st century B.C. to first century A.D.,where the brahmin dynasty in Maghada brought their version of hinduism and tried to stamp out bushism ruthlessly.Brahmins then made Budha as 9th Avataar & solved the problem neatly.

Hinduism or Vedic religion had encouraged mutliplicity of thoughts on the ulimate truth so the real flowering of thoughts[This has nothing to do with hiduism for the common man or hinduism in practice]with competing philisophies such as Sankya yoga by Kapila,Lokayat by Charvaka, Adwaite,Asoor[asoor are not demons but it was a distinct philosohpy and very logical one at that],Budhism & jainism were all searching for the truth[They were al hindus but not necessarily vedic]. There was no rancour against each other.There used to be hordes of scholers travelling from city to city and debating with the other philosophy in specially organised 'WADWIWADSABHA'.Upnishads probably belong to this period

Then came Adi shakracharya with his towering intellect and bhashyas. He was instrumental in giving hinduism the rigidity as it has today.He stamped out other schools and even their books such as Shasthiyog by kapila are not available anymore.

Then comes Bhakti sampraday with focus on Vishnu, Bhagvatam, Bhagwatgita and the focus on naam mahatyam.Once we discovered this with Vishnu/Krisna then shaivism,Dattatreya,Swaminarayan,Iscon and other Swamis were not far benind .These have needlessly divided hindus by claiming their brand is the sole and only truth.The fights between shivaites and Vishnu followers are legendary.

Hinduism as exists today is not a lie but a product of history,which we need to understand.Even today the regious rituals in some of the lower castes have no resemblance to hinduism.

Let us try and bring back the hinduism which used to believe that there many truths, perhaps many facets of the same truth and many paths of reaching it.

[Guest guest]

regarding monoism, duality; an analogy:

 

"i first saw him and he saw me.

There was a flash of the eye, from me to him and from him to me.

this went on until the two souls became so closely united that they actually became one"

 

duality and advaitism then are not seperate, but one and the same.

[Guest guest]

{One can distinguish Vedic religion which consists of carrying out Yagnyas for material things,worshipping of a few gods such as Indra,Vayu,Surya& yama etc.There were no temples or idols.Rigveda,Yajurveda & Samveda [which is essentially Rigveda] fall into this category.This Vedic religion does not exist anymore.}

 

Correct, though some aspects of the Vedic religion are more prevelant in some parts of India than others and are still followed.

 

{The hindu brahmins then looked at budhism and incorpotaed budhist tenets into vedic religion wholesale such as temples [which are based on stupas],idol worship [again borrowed from Mahayan budhism],pooja rituals , taboo against nonveg food and stories about gods and godesses likes of mahayan budhism.This took form of puranas.This is more like the hinduism that we know today.}

 

Actually Hindu temples were there at the time of Buddha, he even mentioned that going to temple doesn't automatically make you religious - he was referring to hindu temples, probably before mandirs. Mandirs were temples based on puranic influence. Idol worship and pooja rituals was taken from Jainism (which is where Buddhism took this from). Pooja worship had existed under various cults probably before jainism. Stories of god and godesses were already there in mantra form in the Vedas, for example the story of Indra slaying the dragon to release the waters of the flood.

 

{Upnishads probably belong to this period}

 

Nonsense. All reputable Historians, even the most anti-hindu western historians say the Upanishads, consisting of Hundreds of recorded discorses belong to the period of 900BC - 200AD. It's only that Sinha moron who is pushing his own agenda.

 

{He was instrumental in giving hinduism the rigidity as it has today.He stamped out other schools and even their books such as Shasthiyog by kapila are not available anymore.}

 

Considering how rigid Hinduism previously was, especially the Vedic religion, Adi Shanakara made it more fluid rather than rigid. He didn't stamp out other schools, the other schools died out a natural death as they couldn't compete with Buddhism which dominated India for a thousand years (due to Emperor Asoka). Adi Shankara wasn't Advaita's first proponent but he was the most successful and he could answer questions where Buddhists couldn't. That's why Hinduism was revived.

 

{These have needlessly divided hindus by claiming their brand is the sole and only truth.The fights between shivaites and Vishnu followers are legendary.}

 

A Christian/Muslims influence that is. The stories of the Puranas help to contribute to this attitude.

 

{Hinduism as exists today is not a lie but a product of history,which we need to understand.}

 

Yes but also, Hinduism is an ever-evolving religion, that's why it keeps producing sages who add to the teachings so it can never really die. When a guru experiences and accepts certain hindu teachings as some of his 'truths' and forms and organisation to help other see his way a Sampradaya is born. He may not have experienced other 'truths' that a guru of another Sampradaya has, but that doesn't mean the other guru is wrong.

[ajit12]

A very good and balanced reply,Guest 2.

Keep it up,

-----ajit12

[akshar]

 

A meat-eater is a Hindu. So is a vegetarian. A theist is a Hindu, so is an atheist. A monotheist is Hindu, as is a polytheist. Dualist is Hindu, as is monist. If everybody is Hindu, who REALLY is Hindu? Does it follow that there is no such thing as Hinduism? Take your own family, for instance. If you say that your father is a father, your mother is also a father, you are a father, your sister is also a father...does it not inevitably follow that the entity 'father' does not exist at all?

 

After all, an object, say water, is treated differently from a stone, because liquidity characterizes the former and solidity the latter. In short, an object exists by virtue of its features which distingush it from other objects. In the case of Hinduism, as in the family example, there is no distinguishing feature at all to separate it from the rest of them. So does it mean Hinduism is a lie? Please don't react violently, discuss politely amongst yourselves.

 

 

Tell me why you are allowed to post these kind of things in? I'll only make one thing staraight. A meat-eater can never be a hindu, only vegetarians. A meat-eater is a cruel person who is asking to go to hell.

[Guest guest]

 

Tell me why you are allowed to post these kind of things in? I'll only make one thing staraight. A meat-eater can never be a hindu, only vegetarians. A meat-eater is a cruel person who is asking to go to hell.

 

You probably don't know but there have been Rishis's that were meat-eaters. And the Rishis were the highest in Hinduism, so there goes your srgument that a meat-eater can never be a Hindu. Meat-eating, especially beef-eating is mentioned in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, if a woman wants a child versed in the Vedas, beef is recommended. Of course this is nonsense, but it is written.

Please find this scripture and show it to the monks of Swaminarayan at Neasden temple as see what they say.

It was the influence if Jainism that caused many Hindus to give up meat.

[Guest guest]

 

You probably don't know but there have been Rishis's that were meat-eaters. And the Rishis were the highest in Hinduism, so there goes your srgument that a meat-eater can never be a Hindu. Meat-eating, especially beef-eating is mentioned in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, if a woman wants a child versed in the Vedas, beef is recommended. Of course this is nonsense, but it is written.

Please find this scripture and show it to the monks of Swaminarayan at Neasden temple as see what they say.

It was the influence if Jainism that caused many Hindus to give up meat.

 

 

Do you have proof that it was JAINISM that caused the perception meat is not allowed in Hinduism?

 

As for the Aryan/non-Aryan distinction another poster made, this is based on the assumption AIT is true, and there hasn't been much proof one way or the other as to the veracity of this. Stop posting western propaganda.

[Guest guest]

 

A meat-eater can never be a hindu, only vegetarians. A meat-eater is a cruel person who is asking to go to hell.

 

what about balinese hindus and kaula tantrics?

 

is the Dalai Lama going to hell? he is a meat eater.

[Guest guest]

 

You probably don't know but there have been Rishis's that were meat-eaters. And the Rishis were the highest in Hinduism, so there goes your srgument that a meat-eater can never be a Hindu. Meat-eating, especially beef-eating is mentioned in the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, if a woman wants a child versed in the Vedas, beef is recommended. Of course this is nonsense, but it is written.

Please find this scripture and show it to the monks of Swaminarayan at Neasden temple as see what they say.

It was the influence if Jainism that caused many Hindus to give up meat.

 

I was told Brahmins were usually forbidden to eat meat, but Kshatriyas were encouraged to, especially before battles, as meat is known to make one more agressive. Something a warrior wants to feel.

[Guest guest]

To the original poster,

 

You seem to have issues with Hinduism. Hinduism is not trying to absorb anyones religion or beleifs. Maybe the RSS is but not Hinduism. Nor is everyone a Hindu. However, as a Hindu, we believe that people should not be focused on identity and false pride and ego. We stress that all religions, though different are one in reality. We just happened to be very universal and accepting. This does not equal to everyone bieng a Hindu. In addition, the term Hindu is defined differently be different people. However, it is safe to assume that Hinduism covers thoughs who recognize the Hindu Gods and Goddess's as either one supreme bieng or the many aspects of Brahma. The denominations covered in Hinduism are:

 

Shivaism

Vaishnavism

Smartism

Shaktism

Tantrism

 

In addition to the worship of the Gods, we believe that God has manifested himself on earth in many different places to send his message- Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc... Again, how does this mean thaty everyone is a Hindu? It doesn't...it just means that we see God and religion as universal.

 

 

Anyway people, why do we need to prove to this person what Hinduism is? I think this person may have identity issues and Hinduism is trying to absorb all religions. Don't blame the actions of some people on the universal, truthful teachings of one one religion.

[Guest guest]

 

Tell me why you are allowed to post these kind of things in? I'll only make one thing staraight. A meat-eater can never be a hindu, only vegetarians. A meat-eater is a cruel person who is asking to go to hell.

 

I would disagree with the completely. Although, vegetarianism is one of the important precepts of Hinduism that does not imply that one must follow every single precept of Hinduism in order to be considered a Hindu.

 

And no, not every meat-eater is a cruel person. I know many kind-hearted and moral people who eat meat that are not going to hell. It is just a bad habit that must be given up if one is to progress spiritually.

[Guest guest]

Hindus can eat meat but those who take a more spiritual path usually give it up. It also depends on what denomination you follow.

[Guest guest]

 

One can distinguish Vedic religion which consists of carrying out Yagnyas for material things,worshipping of a few gods such as Indra,Vayu,Surya& yama etc.There were no temples or idols.Rigveda,Yajurveda & Samveda [which is essentially Rigveda] fall into this category.This Vedic religion does not exist anymore.

The next stage is Aryans & Vedic religion absorbing Non-aryan local religion.Shiv,Shakti,Ganesh were all gods which were absorbed into hinduism from non-aryan sources.When vedic religion spread to Bihar,Orissa & Bengal we find Tantra prevalent in that part of India getting absorbed into vedic religion.During this phase Castes & untouchablilty came into existance to keep those outside the vedic religion as second rate citizens.

Atharwaveda was composed during this period that is why for the first time you find muhurta,mantra,tantra m ,Jaaran-maaran,Jyotish and spells for varius maladies in Atharva Veda.

This was also the period during which a number of entire communites were absorbed wholesale into hinduism.A yagnya called Wratya stome was formulated for this by which entire communites were converted to hinduism rather vedic religion.This was the period of conversion into Hinduism contrary to populer belief However these communities retained and brought into hinduism their own social customs.

There were a number of communites which remained ouside the mainstream religion & were nevre absorbed.Adiwasis are an example of this.

The next stage is of Budhism and Jainism which caused Vedic religion to go into decline.The hindu brahmins then looked at budhism and incorpotaed budhist tenets into vedic religion wholesale such as temples [which are based on stupas],idol worship [again borrowed from Mahayan budhism],pooja rituals , taboo against nonveg food and stories about gods and godesses likes of mahayan budhism.This took form of puranas.This is more like the hinduism that we know today.

As hinduism had till then been on an absorbing and expanding spree therefore all communites have different social customs from the god to worship ,what to eat ,how & whom to marry.They were permitted to retain all this and then an overpatina of hinduism was laid on top of that.Therefore everyone is hindu.

The next stage came in 1st century B.C. to first century A.D.,where the brahmin dynasty in Maghada brought their version of hinduism and tried to stamp out bushism ruthlessly.Brahmins then made Budha as 9th Avataar & solved the problem neatly.

Hinduism or Vedic religion had encouraged mutliplicity of thoughts on the ulimate truth so the real flowering of thoughts[This has nothing to do with hiduism for the common man or hinduism in practice]with competing philisophies such as Sankya yoga by Kapila,Lokayat by Charvaka, Adwaite,Asoor[asoor are not demons but it was a distinct philosohpy and very logical one at that],Budhism & jainism were all searching for the truth[They were al hindus but not necessarily vedic]. There was no rancour against each other.There used to be hordes of scholers travelling from city to city and debating with the other philosophy in specially organised 'WADWIWADSABHA'.Upnishads probably belong to this period

Then came Adi shakracharya with his towering intellect and bhashyas. He was instrumental in giving hinduism the rigidity as it has today.He stamped out other schools and even their books such as Shasthiyog by kapila are not available anymore.

Then comes Bhakti sampraday with focus on Vishnu, Bhagvatam, Bhagwatgita and the focus on naam mahatyam.Once we discovered this with Vishnu/Krisna then shaivism,Dattatreya,Swaminarayan,Iscon and other Swamis were not far benind .These have needlessly divided hindus by claiming their brand is the sole and only truth.The fights between shivaites and Vishnu followers are legendary.

Hinduism as exists today is not a lie but a product of history,which we need to understand.Even today the regious rituals in some of the lower castes have no resemblance to hinduism.

Let us try and bring back the hinduism which used to believe that there many truths, perhaps many facets of the same truth and many paths of reaching it.

 

Hinduism is not necessarily a Vedic religion. This is a big misconception among many people including Hindus themselves.There are denominations within Hinduism that are not Vedic. A Hindu is one that recognizes either one or all of the Hindu Gods and Goddess's as either the supreme bieng or many manifestations of one supreme bieng.

 

Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are not Hindu because they don't believe God manifests himself on earth to restore dharma. An athiest cannot be a Hindu because the principle teaching of Hinduism is the belief in God which is both personal and impersonal, with form and without form, etc... So any athiest that say they are Hindu is missing the whole point....they are not Hindu but they are exactly what they are called... an athiest (nothing against Athiests out there =)

 

Shivaism and Shaktism are not Vedic relgions but they are Hindu because of their belief in Hindu Gods.

 

The Brahmins never incorporated Buddhism into Hinduism. Brahmins kicked Buddha out so why would they absorb Buddhism? Hindus and Buddhists in India co-existed side by side and due to tolerance of both religions, many aspects of Buddhism was absorbed into what was Brahminism at that time. The Brahmins were not always good people either. They have enslaved Sudras and Dalits for thousands of years through their superiority. A real Brahmin is one of knowledge and anyone can be a Brahmin.

 

So you don't have to follow the Vedas in order to be a Hindu.

[Guest guest]

 

One can distinguish Vedic religion which consists of carrying out Yagnyas for material things,worshipping of a few gods such as Indra,Vayu,Surya& yama etc.There were no temples or idols.Rigveda,Yajurveda & Samveda [which is essentially Rigveda] fall into this category.This Vedic religion does not exist anymore.

The next stage is Aryans & Vedic religion absorbing Non-aryan local religion.Shiv,Shakti,Ganesh were all gods which were absorbed into hinduism from non-aryan sources.When vedic religion spread to Bihar,Orissa & Bengal we find Tantra prevalent in that part of India getting absorbed into vedic religion.During this phase Castes & untouchablilty came into existance to keep those outside the vedic religion as second rate citizens.

Atharwaveda was composed during this period that is why for the first time you find muhurta,mantra,tantra m ,Jaaran-maaran,Jyotish and spells for varius maladies in Atharva Veda.

This was also the period during which a number of entire communites were absorbed wholesale into hinduism.A yagnya called Wratya stome was formulated for this by which entire communites were converted to hinduism rather vedic religion.This was the period of conversion into Hinduism contrary to populer belief However these communities retained and brought into hinduism their own social customs.

There were a number of communites which remained ouside the mainstream religion & were nevre absorbed.Adiwasis are an example of this.

The next stage is of Budhism and Jainism which caused Vedic religion to go into decline.The hindu brahmins then looked at budhism and incorpotaed budhist tenets into vedic religion wholesale such as temples [which are based on stupas],idol worship [again borrowed from Mahayan budhism],pooja rituals , taboo against nonveg food and stories about gods and godesses likes of mahayan budhism.This took form of puranas.This is more like the hinduism that we know today.

As hinduism had till then been on an absorbing and expanding spree therefore all communites have different social customs from the god to worship ,what to eat ,how & whom to marry.They were permitted to retain all this and then an overpatina of hinduism was laid on top of that.Therefore everyone is hindu.

The next stage came in 1st century B.C. to first century A.D.,where the brahmin dynasty in Maghada brought their version of hinduism and tried to stamp out bushism ruthlessly.Brahmins then made Budha as 9th Avataar & solved the problem neatly.

Hinduism or Vedic religion had encouraged mutliplicity of thoughts on the ulimate truth so the real flowering of thoughts[This has nothing to do with hiduism for the common man or hinduism in practice]with competing philisophies such as Sankya yoga by Kapila,Lokayat by Charvaka, Adwaite,Asoor[asoor are not demons but it was a distinct philosohpy and very logical one at that],Budhism & jainism were all searching for the truth[They were al hindus but not necessarily vedic]. There was no rancour against each other.There used to be hordes of scholers travelling from city to city and debating with the other philosophy in specially organised 'WADWIWADSABHA'.Upnishads probably belong to this period

Then came Adi shakracharya with his towering intellect and bhashyas. He was instrumental in giving hinduism the rigidity as it has today.He stamped out other schools and even their books such as Shasthiyog by kapila are not available anymore.

Then comes Bhakti sampraday with focus on Vishnu, Bhagvatam, Bhagwatgita and the focus on naam mahatyam.Once we discovered this with Vishnu/Krisna then shaivism,Dattatreya,Swaminarayan,Iscon and other Swamis were not far benind .These have needlessly divided hindus by claiming their brand is the sole and only truth.The fights between shivaites and Vishnu followers are legendary.

Hinduism as exists today is not a lie but a product of history,which we need to understand.Even today the regious rituals in some of the lower castes have no resemblance to hinduism.

Let us try and bring back the hinduism which used to believe that there many truths, perhaps many facets of the same truth and many paths of reaching it.

 

Ajit12,

 

You need to use your wording differently. You keep using Hinduism and Vedism side by side as they are one. Vedism or Brahminism was the prrominent relgion based on only the Vedas- it was the dominant religion in ancient India. Hinduism is a mixture of many teachings and beliefs which are both aryan and non-aryan. The non aryan beliefs were NEVER absorbed into Hinduism as there was no such thing as Hinduism back then. There was only Brahminism which was complete authority of the Vedas. Today, Hindus follow many other texts such as the Gita, Ramayan, Upanishads. And although these texts have some aspects of Vedic teaching, very few Hindus follow the Vedas in it's entirety.

 

Many people think the Vedas is the origins of Hinduism because they were the first written sriptures. However, we really don't know how old Hinduism is because the native population practiced many beliefs that we Hindus follow today. My whole point, I dont understand why Hindus link the entire Hindu religion to aryans as the starting point and why they think aryans absorbed other aspects of native beliefs into what is today Hinduism. The native population should get just as much credit for the development of Hinduism, even more so than the Aryan Vedic Brahmins because many of our Gods and Goddess's such as Krishna, Kali, Shiva were native Gods.

[Guest guest]

A good post, thanks for that. I'm open minded about India's true history because I don't pin Hinduism down to just the Vedas. Let's face it that Vedic religion is no longer there in it's entirety, but some facets of the Vedic religion still survives today.

 

 

Hinduism is a mixture of many teachings and beliefs which are both aryan and non-aryan. The non aryan beliefs were NEVER absorbed into Hinduism as there was no such thing as Hinduism back then. There was only Brahminism which was complete authority of the Vedas. Today, Hindus follow many other texts such as the Gita, Ramayan, Upanishads. And although these texts have some aspects of Vedic teaching, very few Hindus follow the Vedas in it's entirety.

 

 

I suppose that's why the Brahmins to this day want to be the only people to have access to the Vedas. I personally think the Upanishads have had by far the most influence on Hinduism than any other scripture. Even the Gita is seen as an Upanishad.

 

But in the Mahabharata and Ramayana, you find Vedic gods like Indra demoted to a lesser position and Vishnu, Shiva raised to the highest position. Vishnu is a Vedic god though and Shiva is mentioned in the Vedas not as a god but as the attribute of auspiscousness. I wonder how Vishnu, Shiva and the Devi's overtook the Vedic gods?

 

What do you make of the Arya Samaj? They claim to follow the Vedas and they probably study it the most compared to any other sect. They believed they are a revived version of the original Vedic religion.

 

 

Many people think the Vedas is the origins of Hinduism because they were the first written sriptures. However, we really don't know how old Hinduism is because the native population practiced many beliefs that we Hindus follow today. My whole point, I dont understand why Hindus link the entire Hindu religion to aryans as the starting point and why they think aryans absorbed other aspects of native beliefs into what is today Hinduism.

 

 

According to some Shaiva Siddhanta followers they believe their agamas are older, or at least the teachings are. Raja Yoga was formed by Patanjali around 200BC, but apparentley Raja Yoga was the technique the ancient Rishis used to go into meditation when they heard the hymns of the Vedas. So Raja Yoga - as a pre-existing school but have been before the Vedas were revealed!

 

 

The native population should get just as much credit for the development of Hinduism, even more so than the Aryan Vedic Brahmins because many of our Gods and Goddess's such as Krishna, Kali, Shiva were native Gods.

 

You have a point, but it's a wonder that these traditions may be older than the Vedic religion. I think Hinduism can be defined rather simply - It's is based on the spiritual experiences and teachings of numerous sages/yogis throughout Indian history, that are held together with common beliefs/customs.

[Guest guest]

 

Hinduism is not necessarily a Vedic religion. This is a big misconception among many people including Hindus themselves.There are denominations within Hinduism that are not Vedic. A Hindu is one that recognizes either one or all of the Hindu Gods and Goddess's as either the supreme bieng or many manifestations of one supreme bieng.

 

Shivaism and Shaktism are not Vedic relgions but they are Hindu because of their belief in Hindu Gods.

 

So you don't have to follow the Vedas in order to be a Hindu.

 

Yes, but there is a unity. All the scriptures of the different sects look back to the Vedas as their inspiration. All revere the Vedas, so they may been seen as evolutions of the Vedic religion, into different sects.

 

If Shaivism and Shakism are not Vedic religions, then is Vaishnavism a Vedic religion? Because Vishnu is mentioned in the Vedas, though not as the supreme God.

[Guest guest]

hinduz are the best religion in the world!! yay

hindu iz the first religion to exist on earth okay

every other culture kind of copied hinduism

hinduism haz bhudda..and the chinese ppl stole buddha

from hinduism and put it in there own religion..

HINDUZ ARE THE BEST!!

suno suno re duniya waalo

buri nazar na humpe daalo

chahe jitna zor lagalo

sabse aagay honge hindustani!!

humne kaha hai jo tumbhi kaho...

aao hum miljul ke abto bole yaara, apna jahaan hai sabse pyaara..

jo humme pyaar de, hum use yaar pyaar de, dosti ke liye zindagi ani vaar de..

[Guest guest]

 

hinduism haz bhudda..and the chinese ppl stole buddha

from hinduism and put it in there own religion..

 

 

 

The Chinese people did not steal Buddha. They graciously received his teachings. Buddhism spread throughout Asia, going as far as Japan because of Buddhist missionaries! And every buddhist would say this was the Buddha's doing. Buddha wanted his teachings to spread outside India, no doubt about it. His teachings on enlightenment were given for all mankind; to show them how to get off the Wheel of Samsara and reach Nirvana.

 

Sadly, there is some unfortunate confusion with Buddhist theology, with their teaching of their being no-soul. I do not believe the Buddha actually taught it as has been commonly interpreted. For one thing, I have seen Buddhist sutras ascribed to Buddha where he clearly says there is an Atman (eternal self)! So his teachings on Anatta (not-Self) have had to been misunderstood to think he taught there is absolutely no such thing as an Inner Self. He was actually speaking of the False temporal 'I', the Ego, in his teachings. This Illusory egoic identity is what must be given up. It doesn't even exist in the absolute sense to begin with; and it is the cause of all our suffering. When the self-grasping Ego is given up, then one will discover their Buddha Nature.