The globality Of Hinduism

[Ray]

The globality Of Hinduism: Hindutva's attempt to put the Hindu creative brilliance in jail is doomed

One of the attempted follies of our times is the conflation of Hinduism, essentially an eclectic way of life, into a codified belief system that seeks to mirror the major faiths it has interacted with; for instance, Islam and Christianity. Indeed, since the May 2014 electoral thrashing of Congress by the self-professed Hindutva party, BJP, this gross and distorted projection of Hinduism by fringe groups has grown.

Fortunately, the cultural mainstream that voted BJP to power with its first clear majority understands what is happening. For, the Upanishadic ethic that informs our poetry and philosophies is deeply ingrained in 'layers upon layers' of the proverbial Hindu consciousness.

A good Hindu, by the limited definition of the fringe, must shun 'alien' influences – whether of language, dress or events identified with the Western world, including a certain date in the Gregorian calendar identified with going on dates. This definition is then disingenuously sought to be extended into private spheres and personal freedoms.

Such a worldview seeks to put the Hindu creative brilliance in jail as it were, a central prison that attempts to shape Hindu uniformity to assume the uniformity of the other, to prove its ultimate superiority by beating 'rival' faiths at their own game.

The political class that is the fountainhead of this vocal fringe – just as it is at the helm of the cultural mainstream – must stop to reflect why such a constricted world view will not find expansion of space, and sooner rather than later prove self-defeating. And if the political class pauses long enough, it will find a certain subtlety – the Hindu's famed capacity to draw in and hold on to soft distinctions that carry multitudes in harmony – and civilisational creativity are far more definitive markers of India, that is Bharat, than any attempts to redefine it.

The Hindu concerns himself with questions far subtler than the manner of his dressing, his language, his eating preferences – he knows relishing kebabs doesn't make him some sort of a Hindu kafir.

He doesn't or wouldn't shun say the English language to think only in Hindi, but would be deeply interested in learning Sanskrit to read the Upanishads and absorb from the source. Just as he would be wanting to learn French or Latin to collect and assimilate other wisdoms from their sources. Hinduism absorbs from multiple sources; in its search for verities, it stops at nothing. As S Radhakrishnan said, what is built forever is forever building.

Pushed to its logical extreme, as Arvind Sharma writes, a Hindu can claim that one is most a Hindu when least a Hindu. That is to say, one is most a Hindu when one has dissolved one's Hindu particularity into Hinduism's all-embracing inclusiveness and universality.

For such a Hindu, everything goes but not everybody arrives – all gods can be worshipped but god-consciousness – the realisation of impersonal energy as the source of creation – isn't for those who can't or don't outgrow the infantilism of their minds. For such a Hindu, existence is akshara or indestructible, just as existence is soul.

The Hindu's quest is what Svetaketu asks in the Chandogya Upanishad: What is immortal in this mortal world? What is that by knowing which one can know everything? Kasmin vigyaate sarvamidam vigyatam bhavateeti. The answers to this cannot be explained in words as the realisation is beyond definition, it can only be experienced.

And what's for experiencing is the state of Turiya which is consciousness of pure, primordial energy, unrepresented by human imagination that sometimes so bitterly divides humanity. That energy is what creates us, and that energy is what one dissolves in. Those who know one as the self become the self, say the Upanishads, and the Universe is its witness.

As a philosophy Hinduism even encompasses the atheism of Chaarvak, another name of Acharya Brihaspati – not to be mistaken for the guru of the devas, but another profound teacher.

According to his view – which is possibly the first of all materialist philosophies – consciousness too is part of matter, and it's the collision or fusion of matter in the right proportion that gives rise to uper-consciousness. It proffers that creation of the world is an outcome of certain cosmic events and that there's no purpose behind creation.

In fact Kapil Muni, whom Lord Krishna refers to in the Bhagwad Gita, expounds through Sankhya that the two forces, purush and prakruti, being their own guides, do not require any external intelligence or energy to give them direction; they behave as self-fulfilling prophecies.

Over centuries, Semitic themes and traditions have become our touchstones, our stock-in-trade. God-giving-religion-to-humankind has become a cultural universal. Indian traditions absorb all these and more, and for a direct experience of such assimilative processes, all one has to do is experience the Kumbh. This great tradition reveals best, Hinduism's containing contradictions and carrying multitudes.

Hinduism is grand unification of knowledge, which is fundamentally beyond logic or any configuration of god; it can't be defined if it can't be given a form; and, therefore, Vivekananda said that he is a voice without a form, which made him describe the Upanishads as Vedanta, which is the end of knowledge itself, leaving one only with stirrings of an awareness of what needs to be done with that knowledge: to serve humanity as one's larger self.

The globality Of Hinduism: Hindutva's attempt to put the Hindu creative brilliance in jail is doomed - TOI Blogs

There is much debate these days on Hinduism and its nuances in the country, as also in this forum.

It has evoked a variety of comments and discourse on this forum too.

Maybe those who are conversant and knowledgeable about Hinduism, Sanatan Dharm, Vedic scriptures and Vedanta, could comment on this article and educate us.

 

[sgarg]

People confuse Hindu with Vedic.

I have already said that the current Hinduism is very far from Vedic beliefs.

The Upanishads are explanation of Vedas - that is a way of a teacher to explain concepts contained in the Vedas. Upanishads and Vedas are one and same. However Purann is a body of literature written in post-Vedic period and it does not tally with Vedas at all.

The BJP is NOT ruling by force of religion. India remains a democracy and nothing has changed. The above TOI article is just one more attempt to poison people's mind through colorful language.

Hindu denotes a people of diverse faiths. Some of these faiths are conservative just like some Christians are conservative. What is wrong with that?

Yes Vedic way of life is very different from current way of life. Vedic people followed Vedas which contains edicts for every aspect of human life. So a Vedic person would obviously reject foreign influences.

 

[Rowdy]

There is much debate these days on Hinduism and its nuances in the country, as also in this forum.

It has evoked a variety of comments and discourse on this forum too.

Maybe those who are conversant and knowledgeable about Hinduism, Sanatan Dharm, Vedic scriptures and Vedanta, could comment on this article and educate us.

Lets see what else the hindu is allowed to do :

The Hindu goes to mosques/pirs to ask for dua.

The Hindu goes to church on christmas.

The Hindu watches feebly as his religion is ethnically cleansed in Kashmir.

The Hindu watches with his b**ls in his hands as BD-gangs over run his cities.

The Hindu votes for missionary agents that offer money to his child for conversion.

The Hindu isn't allowed to say anything when his daughter is a victim of love jihad.

Ohhh Noo... no one is buying my article because there are no more hindus left.


This article is a piece of crap .. the first para shows it's political inclination

 

[Ray]

Vedanta (/vædɑːntə/; Hindustani pronunciation: [ʋeːd̪aːn̪t̪], Devanagari: वेदान्त, Vedānta) or Uttarā Mīmāṃsā is one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy. The term veda means "knowledge" and anta means "end", and originally referred to the Upanishads, a collection of foundational texts in Hinduism (considered the last appendix or final layer of the Vedic canon). By the 8th century,[citation needed] it came to mean all philosophical traditions concerned with interpreting the three basic texts of Hinduist philosophy, namely the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita, and was eventually recognized as distinct from the other five astika schools. Vedanta is the most prominent and philosophically advanced of the orthodox schools and the term Vedanta may also be used to refer to Indian philosophy more generally. There are at least ten schools of Vedanta, of which Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda and Dvaita are the best known.

The name is a morphophonological form of Veda-anta = "Veda-end" = "the appendix to the Vedic hymns". It is also said that "Vedānta" means "the purpose or goal [end] of the Vedas".[note 1] Vedanta can also be used as a noun to describe one who has mastered all four of the original Vedas.

In earlier writings, Sanskrit 'Vedānta' simply referred to the Upanishads, the most important and philosophical of the Vedic texts. However, in the medieval period of Hinduism, the word Vedānta came to mean the school of philosophy that interpreted the Upanishads.

Vedānta is also called Uttarā Mīmāṃsā, or the 'latter enquiry' or 'higher enquiry', and is often paired with Purva Mīmāṃsā, the 'former enquiry' or 'primary enquiry'. Pūrva Mimamsa, usually simply called Mimamsa, deals with explanations of the fire-sacrifices of the Vedic mantras (in the Samhita portion of the Vedas) and Brahmanas, while Vedanta explicates the esoteric teachings of the Āraṇyakas (the "forest scriptures"), and the Upanishads, composed from the 9th century BCE until modern times.

Comment on this please.

 

[Abhijat]

"He doesn't or wouldn't shun say the English language to think only in Hindi, but would be deeply interested in learning Sanskrit to read the Upanishads and absorb from the source. Just as he would be wanting to learn French or Latin to collect and assimilate other wisdoms from their sources. Hinduism absorbs from multiple sources; in its search for verities, it stops at nothing. As S Radhakrishnan said, what is built forever is forever building."

@Ray , Sir, the above statement sums up it all.

The "School of Philosophy" , stated above , were/are part of different thoughts inculcating in the Hindu "religion" .

Their were Six of them , varying from , purely materialistic ( Charavakh), strongly atheistic (Samkhya) to observation and deduction (Nyaya) , to understanding of atomism (Vaisheshika) etc.

But, the current "school" , which is more predominant than the others ( observation in North India) , is "Vedanata".

That doesn't mean "Vedanta" is incongealable with other school of thoughts , as the basic tenant of "Hinduism" i.e. : " Moksha , Karma, and Rebirth" , were common in all.


That said, the question/deduction derived from OT, is somewhat misleading , as their were always " conflation of Hinduism" , and not a recent phenomena , as these "School of thoughts" ,were always competing in the "Sphere of Hinduism" , and thus , naturally assimilating in "different forms" .

 

[Abhijat]

@Ray , Sir, an example of "amalgamation" of different "Schools of Thought", is my family itself.

My Father , is follower of , "Yoga" school of philosophy

My Mother , is believer of , "Vedanta" school of philosophy

Myself , is follower of , "Nyaya" school of thoughts.

So , an example , of how "Hinduism" allows to have different schools , representing , different/unique mindset of person , living in same "unity".

 

[Ray]

"He doesn't or wouldn't shun say the English language to think only in Hindi, but would be deeply interested in learning Sanskrit to read the Upanishads and absorb from the source. Just as he would be wanting to learn French or Latin to collect and assimilate other wisdoms from their sources. Hinduism absorbs from multiple sources; in its search for verities, it stops at nothing. As S Radhakrishnan said, what is built forever is forever building."

@Ray , Sir, the above statement sums up it all.

The "School of Philosophy" , stated above , were/are part of different thoughts inculcating in the Hindu "religion" .

Their were Six of them , varying from , purely materialistic ( Charavakh), strongly atheistic (Samkhya) to observation and deduction (Nyaya) , to understanding of atomism (Vaisheshika) etc.

But, the current "school" , which is more predominant than the others ( observation in North India) , is "Vedanata".

That doesn't mean "Vedanta" is incongealable with other school of thoughts , as the basic tenant of "Hinduism" i.e. : " Moksha , Karma, and Rebirth" , were common in all.


That said, the question/deduction derived from OT, is somewhat misleading , as their were always " conflation of Hinduism" , and not a recent phenomena , as these "School of thoughts" ,were always competing in the "Sphere of Hinduism" , and thus , naturally assimilating in "different forms" .

Thanks.

I am not clued up on Hinduism in details.

It is a good education for me.

 

[sgarg]

Comment on this please.

Vedant or "adwait philosophy" is against Vedas. Vedas accept only "traitwad". "Traitwad" means three fundamental entities - god, soul and prakriti. All three are eternal (non-dying).

Very few Hindus know Vedas today - I would say less than a million.

 

[Ray]

Vedant or "adwait philosophy" is against Vedas. Vedas accept only "traitwad". "Traitwad" means three fundamental entities - god, soul and prakriti. All three are eternal (non-dying).

Very few Hindus know Vedas today - I would say less than a million.

So, it means Vendanta is anti Hinduism?

If so, why so many Hindus follow it?

Swami Vivekananda is revered by Hindus and yet he followed Vendanta, if I am not mistaken.

 

[sgarg]

So, it means Vendanta is anti Hinduism?

If so, why so many Hindus follow it?

Swami Vivekananda is revered by Hindus and yet he followed Vendanta, if I am not mistaken.

Did I say anti-Hindu? Hindus follow all kind of beliefs which are anti-Vedic.

1. Statue worship is completely against Vedas.
2. Making a god of a human is completely against Vedas.

Why talk of Vedanta only. Swami Vivekanand can be non-Vedic but still a guide for Hindus. Does it matter?

The so called modern Brahmins practice and propagate anti-Vedic practices. Should we call them non-Hindu? The word "Hindu" is just a place name. It is not a religion. "Hindu" is derived from "Sindhu" which is derived from "Sindhu Desh".

The religion of Vedic time was just called "dharm" and "dharm" is defined as carrying out duties as defined by Vedas.

 

[Ray]

Did I say anti-Hindu? Hindus follow all kind of beliefs which are anti-Vedic.

1. Statue worship is completely against Vedas.
2. Making a god of a human is completely against Vedas.

Why talk of Vedanta only. Swami Vivekanand can be non-Vedic but still a guide for Hindus. Does it matter?

The so called modern Brahmins practice and propagate anti-Vedic practices. Should we call them non-Hindu? The word "Hindu" is just a place name. It is not a religion. "Hindu" is derived from "Sindhu" which is derived from "Sindhu Desh".

The religion of Vedic time was just called "dharm" and "dharm" is defined as carrying out duties as defined by Vedas.

You had written

Vedant or "adwait philosophy" is against Vedas.

I am not too conversant with Hinduism and so I went by what you wrote.

I thought Vedas are sacrosanct.

I would like to go with the author that Hinduism is such a concept that it is not formalised within set edicts and walls like the Abrahamic religions and so it is all embracing where everything goes but not everybody arrives – all gods can be worshipped but god-consciousness – the realisation of impersonal energy as the source of creation. It is the Soul and not the Physical that is the centre point.

But then you would know better.

 

[mayankkrishna]

Comment on this please.

The author has tried to explain Upanishad as if he is analyzing by dissection of Upanishad's body by tearing of various interpretations, interpretation of interpretations... and so on.

In practice of modern education, we are taught only what Upanishads are just by explaining what Upanishad means, (like above), or what Uttara Mimansa or Aranyaka means. Can this actually reveal what written in thousand of slokas in 108 books of Upanishads? This is actually useless, if any one wants to understand what Upanishads, and their will be nothing left to politicize about it once anyone reads it completely, although I feel he must be native to the language of atleast Hindi, to understand in depth because, it is much closer to understand Sankrit translations.

This article also only explains the 'Vendanta' as meaning of Upanishad. But Upanishad also means 'Upa-ni-shad' --- at the feet of one's guru.

 

[mayankkrishna]

There is much debate these days on Hinduism and its nuances in the country, as also in this forum.

It has evoked a variety of comments and discourse on this forum too.

Maybe those who are conversant and knowledgeable about Hinduism, Sanatan Dharm, Vedic scriptures and Vedanta, could comment on this article and educate us.

The author has quoted upanishads, because in Hindu religion, Upanishads are final discourse after all other branches of hindu literature that removes the discrepancies, misbeliefs and disagreements emanating by studying other branches.

The author is right, after all, with our possession, we hinduism generally tend to codify it into belief system that seeks to mirror the major faiths it has interacted with; for instance, Islam and Christianity

 

[Khagesh]

I thought Vedas are sacrosanct.

Vedas are sacrosanct. Everything thereafter is subject to and open to inspection/interpretation/examination. Including the upanishads.

I would like to go with the author that Hinduism is such a concept that it is not formalised within set edicts and walls like the Abrahamic religions and so it is all embracing where everything goes but not everybody arrives – all gods can be worshipped but god-consciousness – the realisation of impersonal energy as the source of creation. It is the Soul and not the Physical that is the centre point.

But then you would know better.

I doubt if the physical can strictly be divorced from the para-physical.

I have read only in bits and pieces but I think if you have some time you would like to read up and try to find the definitive link between the Yagyavalakya-Maitri Samvaad and Ajatashatru-Baalaki Gargya Samvaad. Both in Brihada-aranyaaka Upanishad.

www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/ESSENCE OF BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD.pdf
This link will work well for the later and the former is best covered somewhere in the collected works of Swami Vivekanand. Let me see if I can find it for you. Both are in English and do good justice to the subjects.


After that if you have the inclination you could read the different expositions on Infinity (Hindu & Jaina are pretty straightforward in this regard. The way I have read commentaries on Nagarjuna's works I think even he does not breaches the traditions). There is a common link in how Dharmics think and act.

At the same time you may like to read about the explanations to x/0=undefined. Remember 0 can best be understood w.r.t. infinity.

The old 'Poorna Madaha' Shanti Vakya (also in Brihada-aranyaaka Upanishad) would help in understanding why and how our darshan and life are linked by a singular sutra.

By the time you finish this. You will be a Brahmin.

A bit eclectic but should be the quickest route.



Here is the yajnavalkya_and_maitreyi samvaad.
www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/viv...d_other_lectures/yajnavalkya_and_maitreyi.htm

 

[Abhijat]

Vedant or "adwait philosophy" is against Vedas. Vedas accept only "traitwad". "Traitwad" means three fundamental entities - god, soul and prakriti. All three are eternal (non-dying).

Very few Hindus know Vedas today - I would say less than a million.

Sir, you are a , ignorant fool , to least. Please don't "misinform" people about VEDAS.

Having said that , Adwaita philosophy , is interpretation of " Brahma Sutras" , by Swami Adi Shankaracharya.

Brahma Sutras , are compilation of all 108 Upanishad.

Upanishad are end part of , or the philosophical meaning, of Vedas.

So, please do tell , the validity of your statement.

 

[Abhijat]

Comment on this please.

Sir,

"Vedanta" philosophy , is the interpretation of "Brahma Sutra" , which was itself "compilation" of all Upanishads .

Brahma Sutra , was written by Shri Badrayana.

Their were many interpretation of "Brahma Sutra" , and many people provided commentary on it , which became different school of thoughts:

Spoiler

Many commentaries have been written on this text, the earliest extant one being the one by Sri Adi Shankara. His commentary set forth the non-dualistic (Advaita) interpretation of the Vedānta, and was commented upon by Vācaspati and Padmapāda. These sub-commentaries, in turn, inspired other derivative texts in the Advaita school.
Ramanuja also wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutra, called Sri Bhasya, which lays the foundations of the Vishishtadvaita tradition. In this, he firmly refutes the Advaita view as proposed by Adi Shankara in his commentary. Ramanuja's commentary enjoys the status of being titled Sri Bhashya, unlike the other commentaries which are named after their respective authors. It is said that Sharada herself titled the work of Ramanuja as the Sri Bhashyam.[citation needed] [according to whom?][vague]
In the 12-13th century, Madhvacharya wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutras, which describe the supremacy of Lord Vishnu or Narayana. Thus he laid out the foundation for Tatvavaada or Dvaita tradition of Vedanta refuting all the previous commentaries on Brahma Sutras. Madhvacharya's four commentaries on Brahma Sutras are, 1-Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2-Nyaya Vivarana, 3-Anuvyakhyana, 4-Brahma Sutra Anubhashya. Sri Jayatirtha wrote an extant subcommentary to Madhvacharya's Anuvyakhyana called Nyaya Sudha (Nectar of Logic) which is considered as magnum opus in Madhvacharya's school.

Brahma Sutras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, in general we can see that one "Brahma Sutra" , varied to different interpretation , in different time and period , was source of different schools of thought.

Also , their were many schools of thought , like "Carvaka" etc , which refuted the Vedas.

Vedas are called "Sruti" i.e divine revelation , and consist of knowledge , which represents "natural laws" , open to different interpretation.

All others are "Smriti" , or, literature handed down by tradition , so not necessary in need of interpretation , but can be refuted altogether.

Having , said that , it doesn't mean that infallibility of Vedas gives way to "static interpretation" , but human application of "reason" gives it "dynamism" which is required.

 

[Ray]

@All,

Thanks for the details.

Will try to read from the links.

 

[sgarg]

Sir, you are a , ignorant fool , to least. Please don't "misinform" people about VEDAS.

Having said that , Adwaita philosophy , is interpretation of " Brahma Sutras" , by Swami Adi Shankaracharya.

Brahma Sutras , are compilation of all 108 Upanishad.

Upanishad are end part of , or the philosophical meaning, of Vedas.

So, please do tell , the validity of your statement.

How do you know - because somebody told you. The first thing in a religious and philosophical discussion is to be patient and respectful, even when you disagree.

I may be wrong but you have no right to call me "ignorant fool".

Are you sure and confident about what "Adi Sankaracharya" wrote or his words were modified later by somebody else.

You cannot be sure about Vedas without studying Vedas. Similarly you cannot be sure about Upanishad without studying Upanishad. Did you do that?

We do not discuss religious matters on emotions.

 

[sgarg]

The starting point is always Vedas. In Vedic education, the first 9 years were reserved to study of Vedas. How can anybody know anything without study of Vedas.

The problem with today's experts is that they do not understand a word of Vedas and they talk about Vedant, schools of thoughts and Adi Sankarcharya. Quite remarkable really.

My good wishes to all. My guru says that Hindus are ignorant about "dharm" and nation remains weak due to that. A person who is a recognized authority of Vedas is a better guide than just a statement from somebody.

 

[Ray]

The problem is every guru thinks he is the sole guru and that is, for an uninitiated person like me, is so confusing.

I will be frank, I have been through all religions in various phases of my life, since I wanted to find peace, but sadly, I did not find it in any and so I have renounced religion per se.

Yet, I still search out of curiosity, if nothing else.

I am more of an existentialist, if indeed such an existence is there.

This debate on Hinduism in the Nation and the aggressive attitude that is prevalent in some sectors made me wonder if Hinduism was tranmogrifying into the rigidity and rules that characterise Abrhamic religions.

As I see Hindusim and its success in remaining relevant to this time, inspite of many assault which would have made it a dead phenomenon, is that is a freewheeling idea of existence, with no rules, dogmas, diktat, regimentation to curb the individual.

While you say there is no God in Vedas. Maybe so. But then you have to be a great soul to find solace by meditating into empty space.

For a common man, an icon is necessary to focus upon. Call it God or whatever. Muslims have the Ka'aba where they are expected to pay obeisance at least once in one's life time. The Christians have the Cross or the Statues.

And Hindus have the liberty, freedom and space to select the God of their Need. Now that is what is most satisfying since one's freedom, choice and liberty is not shackled by regimentation, rules, ritual and so on.

What is more important and expansive is that a Hindu has the choice to pray or not to pray and yet remain a Hindu. There is no mandatory Friday prayer or praying 5 times to be a good person, nor going to Church every Sunday to be declared a good person.

That, to my mind, is what has made Hinduism survive the rigours and rampage of time and history of onslaughts.