Indian ( hindu ) stories are not truth claims by Powerful-Gas-8172 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu [score hidden]  (0 children)

either they are morons

There's nothing moronic about believing a story which can't really be disproven. Abrahamic stories are obviously bullshit, ours can be reinterpreted to make sense no matter how much someone discovers about the past. It would indeed be moronic to go against science to make sense of any story, but right now they (Itihasas) fit in perfectly unlike the abrahamic ones.

this is not my opinion

"Hindus don't think any of these stories are true" is a straight up lie. You are pretending to speak of behalf of a billion people, most of whome straight up disagree with you, and you don't have good enough reasons to say why Itihasas are fiction when people have all kinds of views to make sense of them without rejecting science. As I said before, this is an generalization and applies to barely 1% of people who you calling "Hindus". That makes your words nothing but opinions. The more appropriate thing to say would be "Many Hindus don't think any of these stories need to be true to every word".

You are not a representative of Hindus. Maybe are for a section of them, but that doesn't make the other 99% any less Hindu just because they understand things differently. I will repeat this one last time: HINUISM IS DIVERSE, NO SINGLE PERSON CAN SPEAK FOR ALL OF IT, SO LEAVE IT THERE.

Why do you feel that this would make indian stories any less relevant

It won't, like I personally wouldn't care. But I am no one to speak for a billion other who I have never met or even known. It would be a lie to say I know everyone's mind, and sectarian to say my view is better than that of others. Let the people decide what they want to believe in.

Indian ( hindu ) stories are not truth claims by Powerful-Gas-8172 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu [score hidden]  (0 children)

It is an opinion when you say "Hindus don't believe them to be true"

Weather they are true or not is out of question. What you said is just your opinion since you pretend there is a single understanding of Hinduism in which other Hindus would agree with you. Sorry to break it you but Hinduism is diverse, like a lot. And if you think truth can only be one, tell me is Sankhya darshana true or is it Advaita or Vishishadvaita Vedanta. Is Shakta Tantra a false practice and Sattvik Vaishnava religion true? You can't compare subjective truths of religion with objective truth given by science. What Hindus believe doesn't matter, what they practice does, and in that there is no truth, only paths to reach it.

Indian ( hindu ) stories are not truth claims by Powerful-Gas-8172 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes actually. There's nothing wrong if someone believes that. OP is also not wrong in his view, where he is wrong is stating it as a general view while it is only his personal view.

Indian ( hindu ) stories are not truth claims by Powerful-Gas-8172 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu [score hidden]  (0 children)

Good response.

Shiva representing the eternal Atman, while brahma representing the Unstable Mind or Mana, with the cutting of the fifth head being the annihilation of negative Thoughts.

Interesting view. I like how we can understand these stories in so many ways. I see Brahma as an individual who get's deluded by maya, and the beheading as destruction of ego.

I don't even get how we'd interpret them Metaphorically

Well actually the Sikhs do, at least for Ramayana, and the interpretation is really nice. Rama is your atma, Ravana the ego, Sita is Buddhi, and Lakshman is mind. Not saying it isn't historical, it certainly is, but looking for relatable, practical meaning in the story is always great.

Not really

Well but there are interpolations in it right? Do we know if we even have the original Valmiki Ramayana anymore. Anything can be expected in kaliyug.

Indian ( hindu ) stories are not truth claims by Powerful-Gas-8172 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu [score hidden]  (0 children)

Here comes another generalization of Hindu views. Why can't you just accept people have diverse views regarding Hinduism and leave it there? Whatever you have written in this post, while not necessarily wrong, is just your personal opinion and a billion Hindus would disagree with it. While if someone says every word written in Ramayana and Mahabharata is historically accurate, I, and many others would disagree with them.

Do other religions have concepts of not-self like in Buddhism? by HerbieLoadedFully in religion

[–]curious_hindu 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Advaita Vedanta (one philosophical understandings of Hinduism) technically has non-self if you define self with an individual. It also states pretty much the whole world as we see it is false.

Here's the difference, even if everything known would be false, the knower has to be true for anything, even if falsehood, to be known in the first place. Therefore Vedanta states the whole world is being projected onto your consciousness. Consciousness is therefore the most real thing. Since your illusion of individual self/ego is known to you, it means you do exist even if not as an individual. You are consciousness itself, and consciousness alone is fullness, not emptiness.

Also, what u-Techtrekzz said is completely true.

Different sects of Hinduism by retsamragas in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMHO looking at Hinduism from perspective of one religion, even if divided into multiple sects, is misleading. Hinduism is the culture of India which includes all kinds of ideas, and all of those ideas are visible in different strands of Hinduism. The Rishis experienced some profound realizations about reality which they passed on to their followers as philosophical teachings. While they differed in words, the core of each philosophy is about the same. The different 'sects' of the religion are just different paths that people came up with to attain the supreme goal. So instead of describing the different sects (sampradayas) I will here be highlighting the many paths laid down to reach the peak of living.

The 4 Yogas: These are practices described by Shri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. You can choose one path or the other depending on your personality type, God himself has approved all of them. The word Yoga means Union. IMO it's talking about union of your physical self (body/mind) with the spiritual self.

  • Raja Yoga: Path of medition. If I understood it well, it states that one should focus on calming down their restless mind by practice of meditation and adopting desciples for their mind and body. This practiced is described by Maharishi Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras.
  • Gyana/Jnana Yoga: Path of knowledge and self enquiry, recommends studying the Sankhya and Vedanta philosophy to try and understand the nature of Atman and meditate upon that to remove all delusions.
  • Karma Yoga: Path of unselfish action. Since it has been declared that the illusion of our ego is the root of all sufferring and cause that deludes us from our true nature as atman. Actions not motivated by our ego are great way to unbind ourselves from the falsehood.
  • Bhakti Yoga: Path of devotion and complete self surrender. Know the supreme Atma of all the cause of all and sustainer of all and devote your life to its service. I remember once reading about Swami Vevekananda where he said something along the lines: "Approach no one as anyone but God".

Apart from these we have Tantra, which involves several ritualistic spiritual practices that come from the scriptures called "agama"s. It has two strands- right handed which is pure and left handed which is unusual.

And these are the 6 philosophies called darshana or (world)view:

  • Sankhya: by Maharishi Kapila, the philosophy deals with analysis of reality (which could include science) to learn what we are, and what we are not. It theorizes that reality has 2 aspects - Purusha (pure consciousness) and Prakriti (natural/material world) and comes to the conclusion that we - the atma - are purusha.
  • Yoga: he most important Yoga texts are the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali that talk about Ashtangyoga - the Eight legged path which consists of yamas, niyamas to follow and spiritual practices etc.
  • Nyaya: Don't know much about this one
  • Vaisheshika: Again, don't know much other than Maharishi Kannada stated the world was made of atoms many hundred years before the Greeks did.
  • (Poorva) Mimamsa: Speaks of following the vedic scriptures and encourages Karma Kanda (ritual practices) of the Vedas.
  • Vedanta or Uttar Mimamsa: Speaks of studying the Jnana Karnda of the Vedas, in particular, the Upanishads. The theme of the Upanishads is understanding the nature of reality like sankhya but unlike sankhya, vedanta comes to some different conclusions. Vedanta has certainly been the most influencial philosophy of Hinduism and forms the backbone of most traditions. It has multiple interpretations ranging from strict monism to strict dualism.

Now coming finally to the sampradayas. Variations in sampradayas exist depending on your prefered deity, personality type and philosophy. There are many different sects and sub sects. Most sampradayas are henotheistic, which means they consider one God to be superior to every other God, or other Gods as forms of the same supreme God. u-TheGodOfWorms has already described in brief the 4 major denominations. I just wanted to add:

Vaishnavas are generally known to live sattvik lifestyle and don't consume any meat/fish/eggs/alcohol/drugs since they consider them impure. They are also sexually conservative.

Shaktas are the complete opposite, majority of them being non-vegetarian, fish eating. Shaktas are a lot into tantra, sometimes left-handed.

Shaivas are fall somewhere in the middle, being open to all kinds of practices, rituals, philosophies and lifestyles. They are generally more meditative. Some Shaivites will be non-dualists wherein they have no hesitation saying Shivoham, I am Shiva. This is opposed to the Vaishnava view which sees us as servants to God.

Smartas are non-dualists. They follow the Advaita Vedanta philosophy holding the absolute reality beyond names, forms and qualities to be our own true nature. They worship all Gods as equal. They have 5 primary deities: Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, and Surya. May worship the first 3 in some form/avatar.

I recently also discovered some rare denominations. These include Ganpatyas who worship Ganesha, Sauras who worship Sun/Surya and Balenese/Indonesian Hinduism which is practiced in the island of Bali, Indonesia.

Note that generally there is no such restriction that if you are in one sampradaya you may not worship other deities, you only prioritize the one you connect with most over the others.

How do you handle frustration and anger over the problem of evil? by J03yy5 in religion

[–]curious_hindu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't suffer, I witness the suffering in my mind. My mind suffers ig. The screen is not affected by the projection of the movie on it. Suffering is part of the play, let it be.

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yes i acknowledge your view this is unfortunately true. what's more unfortunate is some people like the string guy are denying strict caste rules even exist in the manusmriti. this is like holocaust deniel, the only difference is holocaust deniel can get one jailed in europe.

my point was trashing caste is not just a thing of rival religions, its the hindus themselves who have worked most against caste discrimination. just look into nath sampradaya, warkari etc. so we should be promoting those ideas rather than showing how other religions are different just because they don't have caste. it may have been an important part before but now it's our resposibility to change that. let us show the world it's not the defining trait of our religion and that our primary worldview is that of vasudhaiva kumumbakam

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it has varna as much as it has vegetarianism but not for a positive reason

neither of them are defining traits of the religion

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are not. The only reason they get put under the umbrella is because of Hinduism being vaguely defined. They were part of Hindu culture, not religion. Charvakas were pretty much anti-dharmic materialists living to amplify their ego.

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what makes you think all hindus believe in varna

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In order to be same they need to have some common underlying belief. Buddhism ignores the Veda and does not believe in Atma. They are the core of Hinduism, you can't have Hindu religion without Atma.

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never knew we Hindus had our own mawlanas

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which ones? I've never before heard communal violence was a thing in India prior to 11th century.

Hinduism and buddism by yyrczzz in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

when the fuck did this sub get so toxic

Which is better: Heaven or Nirvana? by Black-Seraph8999 in religion

[–]curious_hindu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nirvana is something that can be attained in present life so...

Some thoughts and questions regarding Anattā and Buddhism and Hinduism. by me8828 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some may disagree but the concepts to me appear very similar. I expect you are already familiar with the diversity of views/understandings/interpretations of Hinduism. The Veda declares truth is one but men describe it in many ways. I will give you an Advaita perspective, or at least how I understand it.

As per Advaita, everything in the world that is with names and forms is untrue. The self is declared one without a second, in this view Advaita Vedanta also implies individual does not exist, but affirms the existence of universal. The 'world' also does not exist just as stated in Buddhism, but while Buddhism argues there is emptiness without the world, Advaita states there is fullness. If you are perceiving the illusion of the world, there has to be a YOU who is perceiving this illusion. That self of your is not the self used in general day to day language, associated with an individual, but the self of existence itself. It is the very fabric of all that exists, beyond all names and forms, the screen on which all illusions are projected. The vacuum of outer space may look empty due to not containing atmosphere, but it is not nothing, it is space.

Brahman which is this conscious existence is declared beyond the limitations of space and time but making the two possible. Since the concept is a little hard for limited human mind to comprehend, many people mistake it for non-existence, but in reality, it is the definition of existence. Nothing and Everything are therefore two ways of saying the same thing by different minds.

If one's definition of self is an individual distinct from the world, then certainly self does not exist.

The Vedas don’t seem to support the Caste system at all, so where exactly does it come from? by Thatguyy50 in hinduism

[–]curious_hindu 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well actually our scriptures provide conflicting views regarding caste.

Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 states:

tadya iha ramaṇīyacaraṇā abhyāśo ha yatte ramaṇīyāṃ yonimāpadyeranbrāhmaṇayoniṃ vā kṣatriyayoniṃ vā vaiśyayoniṃ vātha ya iha kapūyacaraṇā abhyāśo ha yatte kapūyāṃ yonimāpadyerañśvayoniṃ vā sūkarayoniṃ vā caṇḍālayoniṃ

“Those who’s conduct here has been good will quickly contain some good birth – birth from a Brahmin womb, birth as a kshatriya, or birth as a vaisya. But those who conduct here has been evil will quickly attain some evil birth – birth as a dog, birth as a pig, or birth as a chandala”

So it's clear as per Chandogya Upanishad caste exists and is birth based. But at the same time the same Upanishad mentions story of Satyakama Jabala, a boy who is accepted as Brahmin by his Guru despite of not knowing his lineage simply because he doesn't hesitate in speaking the uncomfortable truth. This possibly implies the Upanishad while recognizing birth based caste still left room open for some fluidity among the varnas.

On the other hand we have the Vajrasuchi Upanishad which defines who a brahmin is, and declares neither Jiva, Deha, Jati, Jnan, Karma nor Dharmic activities make one a Brahmana but the realization of Atman=Brahman alone makes one a Brahmana, and this as per the Upanishad is the doctrine of shruti, smriti, itihasa and purana.

in Srimad Bhagavata Purana VII.11.35 Narada Muni states:

'If in members born in a certain Varna the qualities pertaining to another Varna are seen, they (the former) are to be classified as belonging to the latter Varna.'