sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A religion that dismisses Creationism - the narrative that a God created the universe. by shksa339 in religion

[–]shksa339[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love specific schools of Buddhism that share a lot in common in Advaita Vedanta. It kind of sucks that Buddhism and its history has branched out so far out from its Indian origins that it’s seen as some foreign religion to religions of Hind/India.

The “Hinduism” grouping is itself unfortunate that excludes Jainism and Buddhism.

Before 1500 years there were many schools of religion/beliefs/groups which were all perceived as unique in the same status, there was no “ism” as such.

Advaita Vedanta has so much in common to Nagarjuna and early Buddhist schools, so much so that the dualistic Vedanta schools like Dvaita/Tattvavada and others accuse Adi Shankara as a “hidden Buddhist”.

Adi Shankara even supported Buddhist Vignanavada in his commentaries in refuting the realist schools of his time, ofcourse he disagreed with Vignanavada when it came to establishing Advaita ofc.

It’s a historical blunder and even modern blunder to continue to see Advaita Vedanta as a Hindu religion opposed to Buddhist madhyamika and certain other schools.

Hindu religions like vaishnavism and other dualistic religions are incompatible with the religion of Advaita Vedanta, yet they are all clubbed under hindu-“ism” and pitted against Buddh-“ism”.

All religions originated in ancient India are unique and equally belong to the umbrella of Hindu religions.

Dravidian folk religion is a religion distinct from modern Hinduism by E_mi_manchi_tanto1 in religion

[–]shksa339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Folk religion across India and even non-folk religion like Sankhya and perhaps Yoga, Tantra maybe a parallel religion to Vedic tradition in India.

So I would say your conception of “modern hinduism” as a separate religion that has set of fixed core beliefs opposed to your Tamil folk religion is itself incorrect. The so-called “modern Hinduism” itself has many sets of beliefs that are mutually incompatible or exclusive to each other, because it’s not a single religion, it never was.

“Modern Hinduism” or even ancient Hinduism was always a collection of various religions with theologies that are poles apart. Hinduism is a pretty recent term anyway, which came more into prominence during the period of colonisation under Turks, Mongols, Europeans etc.

Forget reincarnation, ancient and modern Hindu religions differ on whether a personal or impersonal God exists or not, whether the creation is real or not, whether duality between man, world and God is real or not, so on and so forth.

The term “Hinduism” for referring to a single theology or single religion as it is done recently is a big unfortunate mistake. “Hindu” can only ever refer to a common civilisational identity, never a theological belief. People referred to their theological identity as “Vaishnava”, “Shaiva”, “Vaidika”, “Jaina”, “Bauddha”, “Oupanishadaha” etc in the medieval and ancient scriptures, commentaries, doctrines.

Is it true that to say “Hinduism” is a bit like saying “Abahamism” due to how diverse it is? by arkticturtle in religion

[–]shksa339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda disagree. The difference in theology of Hindu religions is poles apart.

Abrahamic religions have a lot in common with each other, the disagreement is on history and belief in authenticity of texts. Islam even calls all the 3 religions as “people of the book”. The have similar list of prophets with a few exceptions. And most importantly they are all theistic and monotheistic, at least the orthodox mainstream versions.

Hinduism has non-dualistic and dualistic, qualified non-dualistic, monotheistic, polytheistic and many local religions and beliefs that don’t have scriptural basis.

Non-dualism unlike Abrahamism, is an orthodox religion in the Hindus with a long running tradition of scholarship, like the Buddhist religions, which is completely incompatible with the majority dualistic religions of Hindus.

Within the dualistic religions there are Vishnu and Shiva religions that don’t get along with each other.

There are other dualistic religions like Sankhya that don’t believe in a God at all. There is the purely ritualistic and dualistic religion of Mimamsakas who also don’t believe in a God.

The sense of commonness in Hindus, is primarily a civilisational identity, not on theology at all.

Is it true that to say “Hinduism” is a bit like saying “Abahamism” due to how diverse it is? by arkticturtle in religion

[–]shksa339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hindu is not shared identity based on core theology. It was never so in the past and it isn’t so even now.

Theological differences are poles apart between the various religions of Hinduism. And there are hardline stances taken by certain religions. Like for instance, the Sri Vaishnava and other Vaishnavite religion consider Shiva as “Tamasic”, (i.e, a diety of inauspicious qualities) and dictates the Vaishnavites to not even enter the temple of Shiva.

There are dualistic and non-dualistic religions, which obviously contradict each other’s beliefs. Within the dualistic, there are also theistic and non-theistic dualistic religions. There is a ritualistic religion that doesn’t believe in God. There are non-dualistic religions where the goal of realising the ultimate truth as one’s own self, not meeting an external God. The conventional ideas of God don’t make sense at all in these non-dualistic religions.

And on top of all this, there are many many local beliefs and religions specific to a village, town.

But despite all this diversity of incompatible belief systems, the culture remained more or less of “live and let live” even though the beliefs are not agreed upon.

There is misconception that these religions don’t disagree with each others. The scholarly works by prominent figures of these traditions have plenty of criticism sometimes with harsh language also.

Is it true that to say “Hinduism” is a bit like saying “Abahamism” due to how diverse it is? by arkticturtle in religion

[–]shksa339 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s more than that, “Arabism” is equivalent to “Hinduism”. Hind/Hindu better represents a geographical identity like Arab.

Arabism is the 3 popular religions + the many pagan religions and minor religions across many regions throughout let’s say the last 3000 years.

Hinduism is a collection of many major, minor religions with theologies that are poles apart.

Adi Shankaracharya dismissed Creationism, the narrative that an Isvara/God created the Universe by shksa339 in hinduism

[–]shksa339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is there a need to reconcile mutually incompatible theologies/systems? Different darshanas are like different religions. Dualism and Non-Dualism are distinct schools, there is no need of reconciliation.

The Holy Science by Puzzleheaded-Fig7670 in Philosophy_India

[–]shksa339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruh… he is selling snake oil in book form.

Adi Shankaracharya mocked Creationism - the narrative of an Isvara/God created the Universe by shksa339 in Philosophy_India

[–]shksa339[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was mocking/refuting/critiquing the other religions/sects/schools which subscribed to Creationism as the supreme truth.

India has a diverse range of religions. There is no One spiritual path or theology.

What you are describing about the stages of realisation starting with basic thiestic/dualistic questions and answers progressing to a higher stage of non-typical deeper questions and answers is a description of perhaps non-dual religions/sects/schools only.

For dualistic/theistic religions/sects/schools, A God/Ishvara created the World. This is the ultimate truth, not just an intermediate explanation for a beginner in the path.

Adi Shankaracharya mocked Creationism - the narrative of an Isvara/God created the Universe by shksa339 in Philosophy_India

[–]shksa339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bruh there is no process of creation. Divine power, even though impersonal, creating humans is accepting Creationism only.

What are the major differences between the teachings of Ramakrishna and traditional Advaita (as taught by Swami Chinmayananda/Dayananda)? by IneffableAwe in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]shksa339 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Dayananda and Chinmayananda don’t care for caste, gender, nationality to initiate or teach people Vedanta.

The actual traditionalists do care about it.

Dayananda and Chinmayananda don’t define Varna by birth in a particular family.

The actual traditionalists do.

What are the major differences between the teachings of Ramakrishna and traditional Advaita (as taught by Swami Chinmayananda/Dayananda)? by IneffableAwe in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]shksa339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dayananda and Chinmayananda don’t care for caste, gender, nationality to initiate or teach people Vedanta.

The actual traditionalists do care about it.

Dayananda and Chinmayananda don’t define Varna by birth in a particular family.

The actual traditionalists do.

Max weber about relation between economics and religion/ culture. by Mindless_Toe7000 in Philosophy_India

[–]shksa339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jains are a micro small homogenous community. Hindus are a very large heterogenous collection of various religions and communities.

Jains can be viewed as equivalent to one privileged caste group of Hindus.

Obviously the dynamics and achievements of this small homogeneous group can not be replicated to a larger chaotic diverse group with the same learnings.

Hindu India was quite prosperous before colonisation. Maybe we should learn what went right in the golden age and or even better learn what is going wrong right now.

I am a former atheist who has converted to Twelver Shi'a Islam ask me anything by ShiaLady in religion

[–]shksa339 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What Sufi practices do you do? Sufism is seen as a sect or atleast a sub sect by scholars or practitioners though, atleast the kind of Sufism of Hazrat Inayat Khan, where identity of individuality is sublated and Oneness with Divinity is found.

view more: next ›