What about those Hindus?

Sake_Samurai · December 8, 1999, 5:50am

Tris, your passion for the Lord is hellsent. Have you ever considered that your faith is nothing but the will of evil?

Hell is Other People.

Triskadecamus · December 8, 1999, 6:19am

**Sake ** asks

Yes.

We all need to examine what we feel and what we do, and what we say. It is easy to fall from what we think is insight from faith, into self-aggrandizement. If I have made too much of myself here, I apologize, for it was not my intent.

If you will, please tell me how my actions have served the purposes of evil?

<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>Tris</P>

krish · December 8, 1999, 7:27pm

Even though the OP was directed at Christian views about Hindus, I would like to address the topic. Since I was raised as a Hindu, I would like you to note that several Hindus do not even acknowledge that any of the stories about the gods are true. When mentioning Hinduism, they divide the faith into two subdivisions: the mythology and the philosophy. The mythology, according to these Hindus, is merely a tool by which to teach Hindu philosophy.

The only time when I have seen Hindus really believe in the mythology is in certain rural parts of India. Otherwise, the belief in polytheism is basically rejected.

Road_Rash · December 8, 1999, 10:29pm

<<When mentioning Hinduism, they divide the faith into two subdivisions:
the mythology and the philosophy. The mythology, according to these
Hindus, is merely a tool by which to teach Hindu philosophy.>>

Hey christians out there, actually only you creationist loony fundies, heed this good advice. Quit trying to teach mythology (Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, ect.) as science. Learn the deeper truths of these stories and learn to think for yourselves.

Road_Rash · December 8, 1999, 10:32pm

<<When mentioning Hinduism, they divide the faith into two subdivisions:
the mythology and the philosophy. The mythology, according to these
Hindus, is merely a tool by which to teach Hindu philosophy.>>

Hey christians out there, actually only you creationist loony fundies, heed this good advice. Quit trying to teach mythology (Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, ect.) as science. Learn the deeper truths of these stories and learn to think for yourselves.

Triskadecamus · December 10, 1999, 11:49am

Two days ago, ** Sake Samurai ** asserted that my faith is the will of evil. While I do not contend his right to his opinion, I must wonder at his unwillingness to answer my question. Therefore, I repeat the question, in hope that he will answer.

If you will, please tell me, how have my actions, or my words here served the purposes of evil?

<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>Tris</P>

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
–Mahatma Gandhi

the_Scarlet_Pimpernel · December 22, 1999, 9:29pm

Okay, I know this thread has been dead for a while, but there are some relevant points which I havent seen anybody making. It’s been fascinating to read this. People have been calm and reasonable and respectful, and have offered well-thought-out responses, and it hasnt degenerated into a flame war.

First of all, I want to point out that “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name"Christ," like “messiah,” means simply “anointed one.” In the Hebrew world, at the time(s) of the Bible, anointing was the way to crown a king or ordain a priest.
Furthermore, the Bible says that Christ existed before anything else in the universe - which presumably includes the person of Jesus of Nazareth. When I speak of Christ, I mean an aspect of God - that aspect which wants so desperately to get close to me and show me Love that it/s/he wont let anything else, not even death or my own selfishness, get in the way.

The Bible is also a historical document of a people and of a religious movement, not just a divinely inspired document. Personally, i dont believe that every single sentence in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God - a lot of it is the word of a person with an agenda. The God I know is a God of pure Love, and frankly, a lot of the things the Bible says God says or does just arent loving. What’s all this about the Hebrews conquering a people and killing them all except the virgin women/girls, whom they may then take as wives? Religious justification by the political authorities after the fact, if you ask me. I believe that scenes where God is wrathful at worship of foreign gods are falsified - my God isnt a God of wrath, no matter the provocation.

In The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis, there’s a scene that changed the way I thought of other religions. Throughout most of the book, the followers of Aslan (representing Christians) have been fighting the followers of an evil demon-like thing (I think the name is Taash). Aslan is triumphant, and his followers come with him to paradise. A young follower of Taash also is there, and asks Aslan why, since all his life he’d been taught that Aslan was evil and had fought him. Aslan responded by saying that the boy had prayed to Taash out of love, but Taash’s nature is such that he can’t accept love. Anything offered to Taash in a spirit of love has been accepted by Aslan as offered to him. And since Aslan’s nature is such that he cant accept hate, anything offered to Aslan in a spirit of hate has been accepted by Taash. (Incidentally, C.S. Lewis is recognized as one of the great Christian apologists of this century.)

Ive said before that I consider myself a Pagan, and a Christian, and a Hindu, and a Taoist. That’s because each of these religions answers different questions I have about the nature of the universe, and about the nature of Deity. I grew up as a very devout Christian, but in time found it too limiting to the God I was experiencing.

daniel p bostaph said that the Divine may be so ineffable that nobody can understand anything about It. Yeah, I pretty much agree - there are only three things I believe I can say for certain - other than that we’re flying blind. The Divine that I believe in has created and creates everything, directly and indirectly. I will freely admit that it just makes me more comfortable to postulate a First Cause. Thinking that everything just kinda got here by chance makes me woozy. The Divine that I believe in is also all-powerful. Less than that and I wouldnt want to place my faith in It. The Divine that I believe in is also Love - pure, perfect, and absolute. That much I have personally experienced, felt in the depth of my being. And I simply do not believe that a perfectly loving Being, loving in a way we cannot even begin to fathom with our limited minds, would refuse to accept the desire of one of Its creations to get to know it better simply because that creation used one name and worship form rather than another. For all we know, all the names with which humanity addresses the Divine might be way off the mark.

Religions do not exist in a vacuum. This world has many different cultures, and the different religions grew out of different cultures and different time periods. Yet the fact that they still give meaning to so many different people, often in a completely different culture from the original, says to me that those people are finding God in that religion - or rather, that God is allowing it/her/himself to be found in that religion. Which would say that God accepts that religion as a valid path.

I love God to the best of my ability, and try to express that love to those around me. I am sure that I make many errors, both in interpretation and in the way I treat others. But I believe that God loves me enough to forgive me those errors. I may die and find that Rastafarianism or voodoo is the way to go - but the Deity I believe in will accept my “wrong” faith because I gave it with as much love as I am capable of.

I might not have said anything that everybody hasnt thought of already, but Lucky asked for ideas, and I just wanted to add mine.

Il vaut mieux gâcher sa jeunesse que de n’en rien faire du tout. – Georges Courteline

RobRoy · December 29, 1999, 6:33am

Lucky in the initial post neglects several options - if we are to persue God through logic (not a good idea).

The Hindus could be right - (that explains two contradictions inherent in Lucky’s formulations - why doesn’t the Hindu God lead people to Christ or maybe he’s just not telling them). That the Hindu cosmology is not even given an option to be right in this debate shows how it is not a philosophical discussion but simply someone asking “why is everybody else wrong.”

You might ask a Hindu about it. Many of them love Christ and his message (see Krishnamurti) many of them have a personal savior through whom is the only way to enlightenment. His name is Krishna, his name means “annointed”, he is a shepherd, and only though invoking his name can even an already devout Hindu achieve enlightenment. He is also said to be a historical personage AND the son of God. A side note here, did you know that since about 1200 AD, most Hindus have basically been monotheists, seeing each separate “God” (as we call them, they call them “Devas”, meaning “divinities”) as a manefestation of the one and only God. Strictly speaking, Both branches of Vedanta are more “monotheistic” than trinity based Christianity (yes there are other kinds, by the way).

Expose yourselves to some other faiths, they have dome the same with ours and unlike us - see many similarities and reasons for unity.

It’s kinda like they are saying - “we are one in faith” and we spit back “no you aren’t”.

All of these “angles on a pin” type debates really do look silly compared to the level of discourse that occurred in Hindu thought (a non-dogmatic system) over 1000 years ago, not to mention Buddhism. Belive me, dip your toe in their discussions and the logic will leave you in the dust. Up for it? Check your local book store or www.Buddhanet.com

And please don’t think I’m telling you Buddhism is “right”. Some faiths don’t even deal in these type of debates. It is hard for us Westerners to imagine a faith that truly accepts difference in doctrine - even in our own back yard, Judaism respects a higher level of discourse and disagreement that Christianity. It’s really is too bad that we seek to model all religious discourse on the type of divisiveness that exist in Christianity. To project it on all other faiths is simply innacurate.

The moral - when you get to heaven, God might ask not why you didn’t proclaim Jesus as your personal savior (even if he is in fact the Son of Gad), but why you failed to alleviate the sufferring of others. He might casigate you for worrying so much about your personal salvation.

Gaudere · December 29, 1999, 6:47am

Ooh–are you a Buddhist, RobRoy? I was just commenting the other day about how we have Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics of every stripe here in Great Debates, but no Buddhists. Hope you’ll stick around; I’d love to learn more about the Buddhist and Hindu faiths, and you seem knowledgeable.

“I believe it is easy to loose sight of the fact the the Lord has created athiests for a reason…to test our faith. They tempt us with reason and facts… Embrase agnostics!! I would cry it from every rooftop: ‘Embrase an agnostic!’” --“Bell”, on the LBMB

system · December 29, 1999, 7:08am

Roman Catholics were and are famous for their arrogant opinion that anybody who wasn’t Catholic wasn’t going to heaven. My grandmother was decades ahead of her time in rejecting that philosophy, and in her opinion that the sincere of heart would find their way to God.

Longhair78 (I think?) said something on the earlier page that provides a nice analogy for me – the idea that we all call the mountain by different names, and may reach the visitors’ center by different paths, but we all get there if we try.

I was raised Roman Catholic, and consider myself Christian with a strong dose of pagan, though I recognize that there are those who would not grant me the title Christian.

I begin to think that there is some truth in all the paths to Deity – and that the face of Deity can be as God or Goddess. Those who sincerely seek Deity find some aspect of Him/Her that speaks to their own life, and follows and worships that. We may call Deity by a different name, or relate to Deity in different ways, based upon how we came to our understanding of Deity. I think that all the gods are one God, all the goddesses one Goddess, and together the God and the God comprise Deity. And thus I think that in honoring the Mother Goddess I do not slight Jehovah God, for each of these ideas reflects different aspects of the same Deity.

There may be more truth, or more revelation, in one path than in another, I don’t know. But I think there is some truth in all of them, and that they all lead to that same mountain. Maybe some of those paths are easier than others.

-Melin

RobRoy · December 29, 1999, 3:56pm

I’m not officially a Buddhist - but gravitate to it and have read a bit, and on Hinduism as well.

I will warn you - most Buddhists will not bother with this type of debate. I too may tire soon. Even my honest inquires about OT issues are met with invective.

Buddhists are so firm in their “faith” (requires no mental gymnastics) and committed to change AND acceptance (seems contradictory doesn’t it, especially when applied to others?), they are more interested in working on real issues that these “head of a pin” type debates. They really look incredibly stupid to Buddhists. This stuff is Buddhism 101 not to mention having been covered in Hindu philosophy a few millenia ago. I tire as well…

Lucky · December 30, 1999, 6:11am

RobRoy,

I’m trying really hard not to be offended by your post.

First, you say:

This is not even close to what I originally asked. My question was to Christians, asking them what they thought people of other faiths were experiencing when they claimed to have some sort of communion with god. Hindus were only an example of another faith. If I had been asking, “why is everybody else wrong?”, all theists would have been the “everybody else” as I am an atheist.

You added:

Well, sure, I could ask a Hindu what he/she thought was going on when a Christian claims to have communion with god, and it would be exactly the same question. But I have no need to do that as I already know the Hindu answer (which as it turns out is not too much different than the Christian answer). The reason I know the Hindu answer is because I spend a great deal of my time serving the poor in Nepal, who are predominiantly Hindu. And yes, I do mean that I spend my time in Nepal, not that the poor are there and I serve them from here.

Watch who you’re calling “we”.

My apologies to everyone for losing my temper, but RobRoy’s condescending attitude, assumptions about my beliefs and misrepresentations of my postings really pissed me off.

“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal

RobRoy · December 30, 1999, 9:54pm

Your temper aside I will continue…

“But I have no need to do that as I already know the Hindu answer (which as it turns out is not too much different than the Christian answer)”

I guess we need to define terms here. As far as I know, Gandhi, Krishnamurti and their ilk do embrace other faiths far more than other faiths embrace Hinduism (Hinduism is often still characterized as the worst form of idolatry by Fundamentalists and was the subject of a concerted conversion campaign this past year during the Hindu “festival of lights”). The three faiths based on the Old Testament seem to be a little more exclusive in their demands for allegiance than faiths such as Buddhism.

The Pope issued a decree a few years ago prohibiting transcendental mediation and other “eastern practices” while Buddhists routinely encourage practicioners in the west to continue exploring the faith of their fathers along side their practice of Buddhism.

I think it is a mischaracterization to assume that all faiths assume their’s is the only way, or are so fundamentalist to assume that a single way might not be coded by the divine for different cultures and peoples in different times. This is a projection by Old Testament faiths on other faiths that may not be appropriate.

Part of the confusion here is that the entities in discussion may be very different classes of things. Hinduism and Judaism have a strong cultural component. Christianity seeks to be a universalist doctrine based on faith in certain ideas. Buddhism is a practice and does not preclude or assume the type of faith based tenets of Christianity.

Apples and oranges perhaps. But arguing about the comparative appeal of apples over oranges seems to be the core of discussions on these boards.

Polycarp · December 30, 1999, 10:34pm

As opposed to metaphysical arbitration or occult dispute resolution? Melin, you have a new calling!!

Sorry…I just couldn’t resist.

Lucky · December 30, 1999, 10:42pm

I think you are missing my point, RobRoy. What I was questioning is the line I hear from many Christians regarding the reason for their faith (or at least one reason), specifically the assertation that when they pray, they feel god’s presence. My question to Christians was what do they think is going on when people of other faiths claim to have similar spiritual encounters. I was in no way attempting to compare the religious beliefs. I was asking Christians, who often claim that theirs is the one and only true god, how they explained the fact that people of other faiths feel all sorts of connectedness to god (spirituality, whatever you want to call it) if, in fact, the Christian god is the only true god.

While what you say about Hinduism is true and may help to further educate some people on the subject, it is not germane to my question.

“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal

AHunter3 · June 16, 2001, 7:58pm

Officially designated “do not prune” thread-bumping post.

Jai · June 28, 2001, 3:01am

Greetings,

I had just found this forum today, and this is my first post, so allow me to introduce myself. I’m a second-generation Indian-American, who is Hindu.

That being said, I see that while the members are very polite regarding Hinduism, there are a couple minor misconceptions.

I don’t have the time to address the actual posts (and the thread topic for that matter) but, I’d just like to explain Hinduism from a Hindu point of view to lend credence to what members have said.

I used to be active in another forum where mainly I’d rebut the BS claims of Pakistanis, PRC-sympathizers, fundie Christians and most of all Islamic fundamentalists (cyber-jihadis?) Anyways, I got so tired of writing the same stuff over and over, I compiled a ‘three-post post’ addressing the topic ‘What is Hinduism’.

Many (i.e. non-Hindus, including athiests, agnostics, etc) said they found it a helpful introduction to the Hindu dharma. So, I figured, heck, might as well post what I posted in those other boards here. So, heregoes…
ahem

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now let me address the topic: “What is Hinduism”

(this is compiled and added to from my a previous posting of mine.)

It is very long, but reading it would give an understanding of Hinduism- it is the shortest I could do without skimping on Hindu philosophy. Unlike what Ali and his like try to mislead people by, Hinduism by far is the most philosophic ‘religion’… hardly idol-worshiping kaffirs. Those are just lies meant to mislead by people ignorant of what Hinduism is.

Though it is long, I ask people to at least glance over it all, looking over part will give an incomplete and even wrong view on Hinduism.

I have broken it up to 3 posts for ease of reading.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

POST 1:
WHAT IS HINDUISM
Contrary to popular misconception, Hinduism is by far the most esoteric of religions. Hindu Dharma, popularly called Hinduism, is the religion of over a billion Hindus, who mostly live in India, but have large populations in many other countries. Hindu Dharma is also known as Vaidika Dharma, meaning “religion of the Vedas,” the ancient Hindu scriptures. The original name of Hindu Dharma is Sanatana Dharma, or “universal religion.”

Unlike other religions, Hindu Dharma did not originate from a single person, a single book, or at a single point in time. The foundations of this oldest surviving religion were laid by ancient rishis (sages), who taught their disciples the eternal principles of life they had discovered through their meditations The rishis did not claim authorship of these spiritual principles. Although some names are mentioned in scriptures, nobody knows exactly who these people were or when they lived. Thus Hindu Dharma is essentially a religion of principles rather than persons. Yet, in spite of the fact that it first evolved more than 5,000 years ago, Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) is also very much a living tradition continually and progressively evolving with Saints, Sages and other masters continually adding and refining this tapestry.

Hindu Dharma is analogous to a banyan tree, with its roots representing the Vedas and the Upanishads, the thick trunk symbolizing the spiritual experiences of numerous sages and saints, its branches representing various theological traditions, and the fruit itself, in different shapes and sizes, symbolizing various sects and subsects. Like a banyan tree, each root of a sect branches out and becomes a new tree in itself. Like a forest of Banyan tree(s), Hinduism encompasses thousands of sects and creeds, like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zorastrianism, etc, even cross-polinating and thus influcencing religions like Christianity and Judaism.
(please visit: http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Hinduisms_influence.htm for an explanation of the latter two)

Hindu religious thought is based upon the belief in the Ultimate Reality (Brahman of the Upanishads), faith in the reality of the spirit (atman), and faith in the spiritual order of the world. Through their spiritual experiences, the ancient rishis (sages) discovered that there are different ways to approach the same goal, catering to different people exhibiting different levels of spiritual development. Enormous diversity is thus an essential feature of the religious life of Hindus.

Hindu view of the Ultimate Reality is expressed in the following revelation of the Rig Veda, the oldest Hindu scripture:

“Ekam sat vipraha, bahudha vadanti.”
-“Truth is one, the wise call It by various names.”

This doctrine recognizes that the Ultimate Reality possesses infinite potential, power and intelligence, and therefore cannot be limited by a single name or form. Thus, Hindus view the Ultimate Reality as having two aspects: impersonal and personal (“advatic” and “dvaitic”.)

The impersonal aspect of the Ultimate Reality is called Nirguna Brahman in Hindu scriptures. Nirguna Brahman has no attributes and, as such, is not an object of prayer, but of meditation and knowledge. This aspect of the Ultimate Reality is beyond conception, beyond reasoning and beyond thought.

The personal aspect of the Ultimate Reality is known as Saguna Brahman, that is Brahman with attributes. Saguna Brahman is the creator, sustainer and controller of the universe. Saguna Brahman cannot be limited by one form and is therefore worshipped by Hindus in both male and female forms that symbolize the many-faceted state of God.

Hindu scriptures teach that an individual is essentially atman clothed in a physical body. The Sanskrit word atman, meaning “God within,” is usually translated as soul, self, or spirit. If the physical body of an individual were compared to a computer, the atman would represent the electricity that operates the computer. Thus, without atman, the human body is insentient. In a human body atman is the source of the mind, intellect and ego sense.

Hindu scriptures declare that atman is immortal and divine. In Hindu view, therefore, an individual is potentially divine and eternally perfect. There are two states of existence associated with atman: the bound state and the liberated state. In the bound state, atman is associated with a physical body. As a result of this association, atman is subject to maya, which causes it to forget its true divine nature and commit evil deeds in the world. The powers of maya are two-fold.

As (poetically called) a ‘cosmic ignorance’, maya deludes the atman into forge-tting its own true nature. As creative energy (shakti) of Brahman, maya is the material cause of the universe. In the liberated state, atman is said to have attained moksha (spiritual perfection) and consequently enjoys union with God. Moksha simply means freedom of the individual from ignorance, i.e. realization of God.

Jai · June 28, 2001, 5:29am