WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMMON THREADS YOU FIND IN VARIOUS RELIGIONS?

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Altair

So while Hinduism ... does have authorities at a more localized and community level. Also, this isn't yet getting into the authority that books or deities may have, which is pretty much a building block of a religion. :-)

Absolutely incorrect.

• No Hindu is obligated to follow the teachings or instructions of any pujari, pandit, or guru. They have no spiritual authority. They have only knowledge.
• One is hard-pressed to find any commandment or injunction in any Hindu scripture.
• No Hindu is obligated to follow any scripture or even believe in the gods. Hindu atheism is a thing.
• No Hindu is obligated to perform or participate in any ritual.
• In many of the stories there's at least one occasion where a mortal, semi-divine, or other being has flipped the gods off with no retribution from the god(s).

The Hindu paradigm is a hard one to grasp for the western mind, or those that have been exposed to the Abrahamic paradigm.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Little Creek77

What elements in your religion would be helpful for the ruling class in India?

Examples from the gods:

• Rāmarājya ("Rāma's rule", i.e. kingship) is held up as the ideal rule. King Rāma's rule was one of unparalleled peace and prosperity, because of his principles of selflessness. He endured great personal loss, pain and sadness to put the well-being of his subjects above his own. Gandhi was a big believer in it for India's independence.
  
• The examples in the Mahābhārata and its tragic figures, doing the wrong things and causing the destructive Kurukshetra War. It caused the deaths of several royal and ruling clans and dynasties. Even Krishna, who took no part in battle (except as charioteer), and tried to broker peace, saw his family kill each other. He got chastisement and anger directed at him from all sides. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. There were many underlying historical causes and catalysts, but the gist of it was greed, jealousy, uncontrolled anger, shortsightedness, lust, among other evils.

But this applies not only to India; I am not Indian, I am an Italian-American Hindu. But I see the same evils in all governments.

How does your religion condition your thinking and behavior to make it more compatable to advance the ruling class goals??

If you mean what loopholes or weaknesses can unscrupulous politicians use from Hinduism or take advantage of to advance their goals? None, they would not be Hindu then. The only goal Hindus have, and the only ultimate, filtered, boiled down and distilled goal is for the individual to obtain moksha, release from the cycle of rebirth. It's not a religion geared for political gain or purposes.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

Absolutely incorrect.

• No Hindu is obligated to follow the teachings or instructions of any pujari, pandit, or guru. They have no spiritual authority. They have only knowledge.
• One is hard-pressed to find any commandment or injunction in any Hindu scripture.
• No Hindu is obligated to follow any scripture or even believe in the gods. Hindu atheism is a thing.
• No Hindu is obligated to perform or participate in any ritual.
• In many of the stories there's at least one occasion where a mortal, semi-divine, or other being has flipped the gods off with no retribution from the god(s).

The Hindu paradigm is a hard one to grasp for the western mind, or those that have been exposed to the Abrahamic paradigm.

You are thinking of ''Hindus'' as a cultural people. Yes, they can be anything or anyone. This is true for Jews, Christians, and Buddhists as well. Nobody is stopping anyone to proclaim they're this or that. But this is about the religions, and that's where Hinduism and its denominations are following the authority of either books (Gita, Vedas, Upanishad), oral tradition, and/or a deity or guru.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Altair

You are thinking of ''Hindus'' as a cultural people. Yes, they can be anything or anyone. This is true for Jews, Christians, and Buddhists as well. Nobody is stopping anyone to proclaim they're this or that. But this is about the religions, and that's where Hinduism and its denominations are following the authority of either books (Gita, Vedas, Upanishad), oral tradition, and/or a deity or guru.

I thought I made it clear I am not culturally Hindu. So, your first sentence is invalid. I disagree with descriptions of the Vedas calling them authorities or authoritative. That’s incorrect, they are truths. There are no commandments, rules, laws, injunctions as I already said. None of those exist in any scripture or text.

It’s an individual’s choice to pick and choose from among those scriptures and traditions, what to follow, believe or not. Hinduism is highly individualistic. It’s goals are highly individualistic. Ideally we live it, not practice it. The same holds true for Buddhism. There’s simply no comparison to the Abrahamic religions, especially if this comes from reading. Hinduism is known experientially not intellectually. The Christian mystic practicing single-pointed devotion to God, non-violence, the unity of all existence, presence and pervasiveness of God, in all things is a Hindu.

Edit to add: Yet Christianity, Islam, Judaism say I cannot be Christian, Muslim, Jewish unless I accept Jesus Christ as my savior, submit wholly to Allah and the Quran, accept Yahweh and be circumcised, respectively. That’s an authority and control completely absent from Hinduism.

I would delve into this: https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...ts-of-hinduism to truly understand what Hinduism is and is not.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

I thought I made it clear I am not culturally Hindu. So, your first sentence is invalid. I disagree with descriptions of the Vedas calling them authorities or authoritative. That’s incorrect, they are truths.

That's not different from someone saying the koran or the bible is the truth, and their god isn't really an authority but just doing what's best for the followers with the greatest love. In practice they have an authority about them for the believers and that's evident whenever Hindus and New Agers quote from Indian scriptures.

No laws and rules? Samsara for instance is based around karma, which is viewed as a law. There are rules to follow if one joins any Hindu denomination, with restrictions in place. Even if one participates in a satsang only once then this becomes very evident.

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

The Christian mystic practicing single-pointed devotion to God, non-violence, the unity of all existence, presence and pervasiveness of God, in all things is a Hindu.
Edit to add: Yet Christianity, Islam, Judaism say I cannot be Christian, Muslim, Jewish unless I accept Jesus Christ as my savior, submit wholly to Allah and the Quran, accept Yahweh and be circumcised, respectively. That’s an authority and control completely absent from Hinduism.

So you are saying all the other religions are really Hinduism once they go mystical, but the parts where they submit you say that is not Hinduism. But there always is, no matter the path. Surrender is not unique to Abrahamic religion, it happens in Hinduism too, to Shiva, Krishna, Ganesha, or any other deity. No matter what religion one would follow, there is always some authority in place. A guru, a god, and often a book, and there are rules and guidelines. They can be ignored but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Although the New Age has popularized Hindu thought it is at the same time not universal. I don't think Christian mystics or Sufi Muslims would view themselves as Hindus.

[Moonglow]

Hello,

An interesting discussion.

Brings some questions to mind.

If someone follows and/or practices a set forms of rituals, prayers, excercise, or the like isn't one in a way being religious?
Even if a title to someone's set practices is not given. Even if the individual decides to pick and choose what he/she may prefer or works best.

To me, if an individual or group practices a set form of rituals, excercises, with a goal in mind to become or be in touch with something considered divine and/or Spirit, to advance ones soul progression, then isn't this in a way being religious.

I think at times what has been institutionalized and marketed in some ways gets a bit or causes a bit of confusion as to what religious following and practice are suppose to create with in one.

I guess it is a matter of perception in some ways. Can what an individual finds to be true for him/her self and come to know with in be fully understood by another who is not aware of such?

It comes across there are many debates over titles, techniques, ways one Should go about it. Looking at the core of what religion may bring, is it not what some "non-religious" practices can bring as well?

Meaning things titled self development and spiritual development. Don't these also have guidelines and teachers/instructors to follow?

So, is religion really that much different or just more organized and institutional,for the most part, then say other means that may be considered "spiritual" as well?

Not knocking anyone's preferred choice. Just find it seems whatever works for the individual and what it may bring into ones life seem to be the common thread, IMO.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Altair

That's not different from someone saying the koran or the bible is the truth, and their god isn't really an authority but just doing what's best for the followers with the greatest love. In practice they have an authority about them for the believers and that's evident whenever Hindus and New Agers quote from Indian scriptures.

No laws and rules? Samsara for instance is based around karma, which is viewed as a law. There are rules to follow if one joins any Hindu denomination, with restrictions in place. Even if one participates in a satsang only once then this becomes very evident.



So you are saying all the other religions are really Hinduism once they go mystical, but the parts where they submit you say that is not Hinduism. But there always is, no matter the path. Surrender is not unique to Abrahamic religion, it happens in Hinduism too, to Shiva, Krishna, Ganesha, or any other deity. No matter what religion one would follow, there is always some authority in place. A guru, a god, and often a book, and there are rules and guidelines. They can be ignored but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Although the New Age has popularized Hindu thought it is at the same time not universal. I don't think Christian mystics or Sufi Muslims would view themselves as Hindus.

Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, various ways we believe we can attain moksha. There is no right way, there is no “only” way, there is nothing to order, rule or control us. Yes, a Sufi can be considered Hindu because the proper name of Hinduism is Sanātana Dharma, Eternal Way, meaning the truths it holds are eternal and universally applicable. We believe that almost all people have the same basic beliefs. You’re under no obligation to believe them or have any punishment inflicted on you.

In whatever way people surrender* unto me, I reciprocate with them accordingly. Everyone follows my path, knowingly or unknowingly, O son of Pritha. Bhagavad Gita 4.11

* The Sanskrit word is prapadyante meaning take protection, shelter, give devotion.

You mentioned the law of karma, which you apparently misunderstand. ; It is not something ordained and set down by a deity. It is something that simply exists. There are no laws to obey. Law is not the right word. Do something and you set ripples in motion. It is not cause and direct effect, offense and punishment, good deed and reward. It is not “paybacks are a *****”. Karma means “action”, nothing more. Your example of satsang is also invalid. Those are not rules or laws, but customs.

You are simply not understanding or making any attempt to understand from outside the Abrahamic paradigm. God gives laws and commandments, break them and you’re punished. We have experiences and examples. You are trying to equate them, and that is not possible. I’m not sure if it’s humorous or annoying when a non-Hindu tries to tell a practicing Hindu about Hinduism. I’m not sure how much more I can explain, so I’m not going to waste any more time.

[Little Creek77]

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

Examples from the gods:

• Rāmarājya ("Rāma's rule", i.e. kingship) is held up as the ideal rule. King Rāma's rule was one of unparalleled peace and prosperity, because of his principles of selflessness. He endured great personal loss, pain and sadness to put the well-being of his subjects above his own. Gandhi was a big believer in it for India's independence.
  
• The examples in the Mahābhārata and its tragic figures, doing the wrong things and causing the destructive Kurukshetra War. It caused the deaths of several royal and ruling clans and dynasties. Even Krishna, who took no part in battle (except as charioteer), and tried to broker peace, saw his family kill each other. He got chastisement and anger directed at him from all sides. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. There were many underlying historical causes and catalysts, but the gist of it was greed, jealousy, uncontrolled anger, shortsightedness, lust, among other evils.

But this applies not only to India; I am not Indian, I am an Italian-American Hindu. But I see the same evils in all governments.



If you mean what loopholes or weaknesses can unscrupulous politicians use from Hinduism or take advantage of to advance their goals? None, they would not be Hindu then. The only goal Hindus have, and the only ultimate, filtered, boiled down and distilled goal is for the individual to obtain moksha, release from the cycle of rebirth. It's not a religion geared for political gain or purposes.

Thank You for your thoughtful reply. However, see politics, and that means a ruling class of people are very much are involved in the Hindu religion.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, various ways we believe we can attain moksha. There is no right way, there is no “only” way, there is nothing to order, rule or control us. Yes, a Sufi can be considered Hindu because the proper name of Hinduism is Sanātana Dharma, Eternal Way, meaning the truths it holds are eternal and universally applicable. We believe that almost all people have the same basic beliefs. You’re under no obligation to believe them or have any punishment inflicted on you.

In claiming the Sufi is really a Hindu you are presenting Hinduism as a universal religion though. That is your choice as a believer, but from a cultural and intellectual point of view it's problematic. You know some Christians interpret local flood stories of 400BC, 1600, or 30BC all as proof of some global flood? I've seen some Hindus do the same with Germanic polytheism and Meso-American beliefs, that it's all really Hinduism. In both cases [Christian and Hindu] the similarities found are whimsical and upon closer investigation show there never was a global religion, just similarities because people may have dealt with similar issues such as living in river deltas, worshipping big animals, etc.

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

In whatever way people surrender* unto me, I reciprocate with them accordingly. Everyone follows my path, knowingly or unknowingly, O son of Pritha. Bhagavad Gita 4.11
* The Sanskrit word is prapadyante meaning take protection, shelter, give devotion.

This means you view the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna as your authorities for living spiritually..
Other people choose other book(s) and gods or important persons (teachers, gurus). This is all part of what makes a religion.

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

You mentioned the law of karma, which you apparently misunderstand. ; It is not something ordained and set down by a deity. It is something that simply exists. There are no laws to obey. Law is not the right word. Do something and you set ripples in motion. It is not cause and direct effect, offense and punishment, good deed and reward. It is not “paybacks are a *****”. Karma means “action”, nothing more.

Fair enough, but karma is not just simple cause and effect. It deals with the supernatural and reincarnation.

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

Your example of satsang is also invalid. Those are not rules or laws, but customs.

This is semantics. One may also fart in church but it's likely frowned upon , or one may divorce and still be accepted in church!! In Hinduism there are rules in temples, in guru homes, etc. I think I understand where the confusion may come from though. It rests in the fact that in the history of Europe and the Middle East many things were written down, so customs become formal rules. In the history of India much was oral tradition. This however does not mean that there aren't any rules, it just means they wrote down less, or it got destroyed, possibly because of the wetter climate.

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

You are simply not understanding or making any attempt to understand from outside the Abrahamic paradigm. God gives laws and commandments, break them and you’re punished. We have experiences and examples. You are trying to equate them, and that is not possible. I’m not sure if it’s humorous or annoying when a non-Hindu tries to tell a practicing Hindu about Hinduism. I’m not sure how much more I can explain, so I’m not going to waste any more time.

Religions deal with the supernatural and have formal books seen as divinely inspired, deal with the problem of suffering, postulate spiritual solutions to suffering, and have authoritative figures (which have different titles). There are many Hindu sects that tick all these boxes.

Hinduism is a collective for many Indian religion that is not Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism. It's a generalizing term but you can't say there isn't religion in Hinduism.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Altair

... things were written down, so customs become formal rules.

Religions deal with the supernatural and have formal books seen as divinely inspired...

I think this is key and the formality exist, and it is to know when formal and central rules affect us which is (called) knowledge is wrong whatever that system is. It is to know knowledge.

imo it is not about obligation to any system but to be aware when knowledge is wrong. I do believe people have both the authority and right to say no to even God (any Being) when (parts of) knowledge presented is wrong.

Even a system having multiple Being's recognizes the concept of one. It is still one being and linear. It is being able to tell the one being something. It is others however that tell me what the one said. Even in that one concept a person must feel they have the authority, right, and permission to say no when something is not right.