PDA

View Full Version : The incomparability of Hinduism



Kumar_Das
27 April 2011, 09:16 PM
The foundational and fundamental understanding of God is that He is distinct in all ways to everything else and therefore He cannot be compared to anything else whatsoever. Hence He is Incomparable. Everything about God is Incomparable. Whatever/Everything that is about God, is never about anything else.

To say and understand this is to know that such a nature is befitting of the Majesty, Excellence and Glory of God and directly to know God Himself.

This in turn extends to our relationship and association with God. That whatever we do (regarding ourselves with respect)to God - whatever happens between us and God, does not elsewhere.(which is why there is also nothing "outside" of God - this is also an understanding of metaphysical reality itself. What is meant here is that God is the Creator and whatever proceeds from Him is creation, and there is no created thing or realm which God can be removed from)

We are the cohorts of God, and the interaction that takes place amongst ourselves, although made up of differences, is not entirely distinct, infact not even distinct in an actual sense, as absolute distinction alone is that of God, the world of difference actually is God's creativity and power, and God maintains His Exalted state with respect to anything of anykind, which is something that we cannot(unless we embark on the of Yoga - even then even the perfected Sages are not Co-Equals to God, the understanding here is that equanimity can only be achieved by one devoted to God and sees His Supremacy over all things else, so this is a further understanding for one engaging with greater dedication at a more advanced level, we have to "try" and "strive" and all the while God would direct and guide us, so again here it is just about being a better servant to God, and that is based upon your own standards, the state of equanimity which would be achieved then too is not "being like how God is", its the state of creation being closest to its Creator on its own accord, God is Intimate with everything/everyone always)

How is Hinduism "incomparable" ? Hinduism is not incomparable in the sense God is. Hinduism is the path to God, the Incomparable One, hence it derives its incomparability.

An "example"(so to speak) is the worship of God, which is tenet/practice.

Worship should only be to God.

Why is God alone worthy of worship? Because God is distinct? But if so, that means God is distinct only what, right? What has worship got to do with anything? God doesnt lose his distinctness if worship by us is directed elsewhere, right?

That is right. This is where the subsequent understanding comes.(I will get to this later) We can choose to worship anything besides God, but that doesnt mean its correct, the fact that we have a choice means that we have freedom, but freedom is not without consequences(and I dont mean Hell here), and the reality that we can seek to not worship God shows(to us) that God is not intent on you worshipping Him. It is not that He "cannot", even if God made you only worship Him(without a choice), it wouldnt mean that He got what He wants more, everything is done in God's way(including our not worshipping Him). The only way is that of God, no matter what you do, its God who is actually under control. To feel this is worship.

Now getting back to the subsequent understanding.

God's incomparability is that God is unlike anything - He is distinct from all else, and only He is that way, and within this is the natural understanding that Brahman is one without a second, one without a part, one without a kind, one in a way that is uncompromising, beyond numbers, simply the Supreme One, the Absolute, or God/Brahman.

God remains Incomparable no matter what He does.

What we do towards Him, where we honour Him (be it speaking of Him, praising of Him - when you speak of God, it is by default a praise, such is the Glory of God, God is Great and His Greatness is Infinite, this is the truth about the nature of God, saying this alone is also a praise -, or worshipping Him) should not be done to something else. Or else its delusional.

Speaking about God, we say God is Omniscient. To say something else, like for example a cup is Omniscient, is on our part our own delusion, as it is false, and we are the only stupid ones here, God remains to be the only entity which is Omniscient.

Likeso, action towards God that is (physical)worship, should be directed towards God alone.

One can speak about God, and not understand. One can bow down and not understand. The root of worship is understanding, and that requires the focus of the mind on God.

Knowing God and accepting Him for who He is, and feeling about Him which is in a certain way unlike anything else, is because the person who is God is distinct/unique.

The basic following of Hinduism is this. Worshipping God (according to how God sees it fit, and doing it the proper, acceptable way).

Subordination without question/hesitation is worship. And subordination by all costs towards someone else is only something apart from God, that we can do to Sages. Because Sages are servants of God who are greater than us (better in their servitude, who can even communicate directly with God).

They(Sages) verbally transmitted to us the truth they had ability to receive i.e Vedas. And Vedas are Holy.

A Sage may ask of you to do something. And this may not be directly related to his work on behalf of God. Still you must do it. Simply because he is a Sage.

Moreso then are the Vedas, which are Holy, thus in this way too they are Infallible/Uncontestable. The value of the verse of the Veda does not rest on the Sage who revealed it, but the verse itself, the truth that it is. The Sage rose to prominance because of the verse.

The reason behind subordinance to a Sage is not because of his own nature, but because he is more close to God than you are/he is of a higher "spiritual rank". And serving him only cleanses your sins and association with him in anyway is a blessing.

And unlike other "ranks" and "authorities", Sages do not take delight in exercising their authority, they have handed their egos over to God, and do whatever God commands them to, which is why they are fit for the task.

Similarly the religion of the Vedas, that is Hinduism, according to Indian cultural context, because India is the land of the Sages, is incomparable, because its about God.

Hinduism isnt God. Hinduism is the religion of God, as followed and taught by the Sages. So Hinduism isnt Incomparable the way God is but through its relation to God, that of being the religion.

smaranam
28 April 2011, 07:13 AM
WOW , GOD-inspired

:goodpost:

Perhaps this should be our sticky way up above all the Forum Folders, not just in Dvaita subfolder - or at least under "God in Hindu Dharma." - I know that wouldn't be right, but this needs to be somewhere all eyes go.

praNAm

anirvan
28 April 2011, 09:00 AM
The foundational and fundamental understanding of God is that He is distinct in all ways to everything else and therefore He cannot be compared to anything else whatsoever. Hence He is Incomparable. Everything about God is Incomparable. Whatever/Everything that is about God, is never about anything else.


The whole post seems to be influenced by Islamic teachings. but i couldn"t sense what is the gist of the thread.

nitinsharma
28 April 2011, 09:03 AM
I do not know what to say.Hinduism is the greatest,best religion.You will never hear me even suggesting otherwise.Sorry to say so but it is COMPARABLE.That's it.Like it or hate it,it is comparable.Nothing else.I know I might be sounding anti-hindu or whatever,so please forgive my inability to see things your way.

I doubt I can match your profound knowledge,but I will make a bold assumption here,that you do not know what Paganism is,atleast the way I do.
The Vedas,the Bhagavat Gita alone are enough pip ANY other religion.
We may never know what great treasures the Pagans had.Thanks to the cutheans.

Apologies for any wrong statements/assumptions in this post.

yajvan
28 April 2011, 11:35 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Hinduism isnt God. Hinduism is the religion of God, as followed and taught by the Sages. So Hinduism isnt Incomparable the way God is but through its relation to God, that of being the religion.
I think what you offer is very inspiring and worthy of a 2nd read.The orientation I am thinking of is of those kind souls that wish to practice hinduism ( I prefer the term sanātana dharma ) and are not certain where to start. So , the ~starting~ is then with wearing beads, bindu, or other accessories to feel being part of the group. Yet these things, these customs comes from the desire to be absorbed in the Supreme, to come to know the Lord in full and not the other way around. So what you say makes perfect sense ( to me) - Hinduism isn't God.

That is, I fear, some think if I dress or look like a Hindu that then makes it so. This is the blunder many can fall into . I am in hopes people see this and can reconcile that looks are just that of the body. It is the intrinsic value of being absorbed in the Supreme that is ones course in life. Every thing else should be the ingredients that takes you there.
This we can call 'commitment' - this is what sanātana dharma means to me - that vehicle that assists and compliments one's commitment.
The commitment = sanātana dharma = path to the Supreme.



praṇām

Kumar_Das
30 April 2011, 05:48 AM
The whole post seems to be influenced by Islamic teachings. but i couldn"t sense what is the gist of the thread.

How many times do we have deal with this accusation/insult?

Tattva Vada is a wholly Vedic philosophy based entirely on the Vedas and other Vedic derivative scriptures and seeks to be completely faithful to it. The works of Dvaita follow actual authoritative systems of interpretation rigorously and robustly. The format is very systematic. Sri Madhva' Gita Bhashya which is available online, and how he quotes extensively from other scriptures to back up. Even the Sanskrit terminology is heavily studied from a classical and historical perspective.

Infact as far as I know, Dvaitins are the most committed to the whole of Vedas and Prasthana Trayi. Not like in Advaita, where a few words/verses are taken in isolation, and very bold assertions are made from out of nowhere.

The spirit of Dvaita is consistency, being true to the exact meaning all the way through.

You're a Gaudiya yourself correct? Funny because I find similarities in the behaviour of Gaudiyas especially the "converts" and Muslims. Muslims claim Mohammad to be of the lineage of Abraham and Islam to be contemporary yet complementary to the other Abrahamic religions, and Muhammad/Islam to finalize Abrahamism. And you say things like "it was only valid for that time" in reference to other traditions/schools. There is certain patronizing jargon that is typical of Gaudiyas and its also quite hypocritical, on one hand there is a certain hatred for Adi Shankara and his "Mayavada" and on the other hand you accept that he was an incarnation of Lord Shiva and who was born to defeat Buddhism to "pave the way" for Chaitanya philosophy and teachings.:rolleyes:

It's a nice tactic trying to insult "being influenced by a religion(especially religions that have been antagonistic to Hinduism)" as a way of denouncing. I know Dvaitins accuse Advaita of being Buddhistic in nature, but the fact of the matter is alot of Advaitic works do seem to heavily borrow from Buddhist ones.

I personally don't object to this because Advaita simply took Buddhist terminology and concepts and gave their own altogether. For them its a matter of convenience. Just like their interpretation of the Upanishads: "find something that we can use to support what we have in our mind".

I believe that Dvaita philosophy is the true essence of Vedas

1) since God is the way He is and that is Monotheistic, Monotheism is just "natural" without the scriptures

2) scripture give us the proper understanding - we cannot do without it

anirvan
30 April 2011, 09:18 AM
How many times do we have deal with this accusation/insult?

[QUOTE]Tattva Vada is a wholly Vedic philosophy based entirely on the Vedas and other Vedic derivative scriptures and seeks to be completely faithful to it. The works of Dvaita follow actual authoritative systems of interpretation rigorously and robustly. The format is very systematic. Sri Madhva' Gita Bhashya which is available online, and how he quotes extensively from other scriptures to back up. Even the Sanskrit terminology is heavily studied from a classical and historical perspective.

Infact as far as I know, Dvaitins are the most committed to the whole of Vedas and Prasthana Trayi. Not like in Advaita, where a few words/verses are taken in isolation, and very bold assertions are made from out of nowhere.


Namaste, it was never intended to insult or showing inferior to any teachings.my apology if it looked like that.

But do you want to say in above sentences that Rigorous and robust interpretation of scriptural description will bring the truth.truth is self evident and logical,scientific and rational to common thinking. more you interpret,more the illusory world of WORDS will be created.

I strongly believe religion is based upon realization....APAROKHSA ANUBHUTI,not scriptural realization.

and to any rational thinking mind,advita is ultimate truth.rest are relative and yes as for as working knowledge is concerned,Dvita is sufficient.

I neither take pride as Gaudiya,nor mayavadi, but a truth seeker.

Kumar_Das
07 May 2011, 06:40 AM
WOW , GOD-inspired

:goodpost:

Perhaps this should be our sticky way up above all the Forum Folders, not just in Dvaita subfolder - or at least under "God in Hindu Dharma." - I know that wouldn't be right, but this needs to be somewhere all eyes go.

praNAm

Namaste smaranam,

I am glad that you appreciate and support my post.

pranams

Kumar_Das
07 May 2011, 06:45 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I think what you offer is very inspiring and worthy of a 2nd read.The orientation I am thinking of is of those kind souls that wish to practice hinduism ( I prefer the term sanātana dharma ) and are not certain where to start. So , the ~starting~ is then with wearing beads, bindu, or other accessories to feel being part of the group. Yet these things, these customs comes from the desire to be absorbed in the Supreme, to come to know the Lord in full and not the other way around. So what you say makes perfect sense ( to me) - Hinduism isn't God.

That is, I fear, some think if I dress or look like a Hindu that then makes it so. This is the blunder many can fall into . I am in hopes people see this and can reconcile that looks are just that of the body. It is the intrinsic value of being absorbed in the Supreme that is ones course in life. Every thing else should be the ingredients that takes you there.

This we can call 'commitment' - this is what sanātana dharma means to me - that vehicle that assists and compliments one's commitment.
The commitment = sanātana dharma = path to the Supreme.



praṇām

Namaste,

Hello again and I am also glad you posted and offered your insight regarding Hinduism as well. I agree with you. Outward appearances do not define spiritual endeavour. They are only parts of the steps we take that symbolize. They indicate and are precursors before the engagement, not the course and end in and of themselves.

pranams

TheOne
07 May 2011, 07:24 AM
I'm not sure I support your "bashing" of Advaita and Buddhism. The Oneness of nature and the fluid nature of the universe is what people(philosophers, sages, modern scientists) have pointed to since time immemorial.

It's not exclusively a Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, Neoplatonist, Sufi, Gnostic, etc. concept because once one implies "ownership" over the philosophy that introduces a level of false duality in our minds.


I don't mean to criticize overly but I do believe some of your statements contain LARGE logical fallacies. You say it is natural for a human to worship a monotheistic God as per the Vedas.

If it is so natural then why are there philosophies opposed to it and why don't babies come out of their mother chanting the vedas? My point is the moment someone exalts something as being the "right" path for humanity is the moment they lost all credibility.

If there was a so called "right" path for Humanity don't you think that would be a bit of a let down because we would never need to use our intellect for anything all we would have to do is follow this "right" path?

Sahasranama
07 May 2011, 08:58 AM
I'm not sure I support your "bashing" of Advaita and Buddhism. The Oneness of nature and the fluid nature of the universe is what people(philosophers, sages, modern scientists) have pointed to since time immemorial.

It's not exclusively a Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, Neoplatonist, Sufi, Gnostic, etc. concept because once one implies "ownership" over the philosophy that introduces a level of false duality in our minds.I will be honest, I have not read the opening post. But just to make something clear, similar terminology can be used in different traditions, but the meaning is not always similar. Non-duality in Buddhist philosophy and in Advaita Vedanta have different meanings. This article explains it nicely, it is written by someone who has formally studied vedanta first before converting to Buddhism. He was also the first non tibetan to get the title rimpoche. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html)

TheOne
07 May 2011, 10:42 AM
I know on the outside the terms used are different and there are different dare I say "myths" surrounding the core philosophy of Advaita, Zen, and Taoism but the message of Oneness. Oneness with nature, oneness with the universe, and the oneness of consciousness are rec curing themes in these philosophical systems. One can spend all day arguing the differences or one can revel in a lifetime of similarities present in each school of thought.

Sahasranama
07 May 2011, 10:38 PM
I know on the outside the terms used are different and there are different dare I say "myths" surrounding the core philosophy of Advaita, Zen, and Taoism but the message of Oneness. Oneness with nature, oneness with the universe, and the oneness of consciousness are rec curing themes in these philosophical systems. One can spend all day arguing the differences or one can revel in a lifetime of similarities present in each school of thought.This is an interesting subject, but I think it would require a deeper study to better understand similarities and differences. Acharyas like Shankara and Gaudapada have clearly stated that what they teach is not Buddhism, while other acharyas have made fun of them saying that they were crypto-Buddhists. The article I have posted above is just one point of view for further investigation from a learned scholar in both vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism (with obviously a clear bias towards Buddhism). If the traditions themselves have understood their ideas to be different from each other, it would be arrogant of us to assume they were just talking about the same thing with different words, without further investigation in these matters.

SOV
08 May 2011, 01:28 AM
What buddhism says: This world is an illusion. Ultimately everything is 'shoonya'(void)
What vedanta says: This world is an illusion. Ultimately everything is 'one'(the inexplicable atma)

There is also a theory by some scholars that Gaudapada was influenced by nagarjuna, a mahayana buddhist. I don't buy this though. It is also possible that nagarjuna might have been influenced by Gaudapada. This vedantic teaching surely does not start from gaudapada. If one has to study vedanta, one would come to agree that any seeming resemblance or 'influence' is nothing but silly criticisms which are not worthy of explaining.

TheOne
09 May 2011, 05:35 PM
Does not the void exist only in relation to the one? Does not the one exist only in relation to the void?

The form(which we percieve) only exists in relation to non-existance. And the non-existance which we do not see, non-exists only in relation to existance. To put it simpler, the cup exists only in relation to the emptiness that it contains.


Zen Buddhists(in my opinion) saw this the most clearly.

Edit: I think you stated an oversimplification in when you said the "world is an illusion". I certainly don't see it as an illusion, I see the attempt at seperating objects into 'this' and 'that' an illusion that has no scientific, or philosophical backing. Hindu mystics such as Sri Ramanamarishi have said things along the lines of 'The world is only an illusion if you see it as separate entities' the same is with Zen thinkers, Daoist sages, and even a few Western mystics and teachers.

anirvan
10 May 2011, 03:30 AM
There is gross difference between vedanta and budhism in the simple fact that the very nature of absolute in buddhism is sunya/empty,qualitiless and meaning less dead state.
Budhism taught how to achieve a state completely devoid of sorrow.given me a chance of nirvana,i will straightaway reject it(evident from my user name).

But Vedanta teaches that the state of absolute is not only completely devoid of sorrow,but as well filled with absolute bliss.
Vedanta says that" the "I" inside me is present in everything in and out.everything pain,sorrows,happiness,bliss is off mine.he reached in that state after removing ignorance.

Ultimately the quality of mokhsa is different in both.Buddhism teaches to eat castor oil,vedanta teaches to eat Ghee.

jayaguru

Sahasranama
10 May 2011, 03:37 AM
There is gross difference between vedanta and budhism in the simple fact that the very nature of absolute in buddhism is sunya/empty,qualitiless and meaning less dead state.
Budhism taught how to achieve a state completely devoid of sorrow.given me a chance of nirvana,i will straightaway reject it(evident from my user name).I agree with your assessment, only want to add that the word (brahma)nirvana was also used by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita(5.26), but as mentioned earlier, words can have different meaning in different traditions. It is also used in many other Hindu works like the Bhagavatam, so maybe you want to change your username? :cool1:

SOV
10 May 2011, 04:59 AM
Does not the void exist only in relation to the one? Does not the one exist only in relation to the void?
No. what is void and what is 'the one' is the question. Void is simply ignorance. It has no existance. The one, as you call it, is pure existence- in relation to nothing.
AHAM, which means A heyam- That which cannot be ignored-english I- is the one.


The form(which we percieve) only exists in relation to non-existance. And the non-existance which we do not see, non-exists only in relation to existance. To put it simpler, the cup exists only in relation to the emptiness that it contains.


Zen Buddhists(in my opinion) saw this the most clearly.

Edit: I think you stated an oversimplification in when you said the "world is an illusion". I certainly don't see it as an illusion, I see the attempt at seperating objects into 'this' and 'that' an illusion that has no scientific, or philosophical backing. Hindu mystics such as Sri Ramanamarishi have said things along the lines of 'The world is only an illusion if you see it as separate entities' the same is with Zen thinkers, Daoist sages, and even a few Western mystics and teachers.

The subject-object thing. The mind is both seer and the seen. When the mind is withdrawn, there is no seer and seen. In deep sleep state, when the mind is withdrawn, there is no subject-object difference. This proves that the subect and obect, the seer and the seen is only in the mind, like a dream-illusion mate.

Water
10 May 2011, 08:14 AM
Very interesting and many thanks to you all for exploring the subject.

Having been exposed to Buddhism, Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta (in that order exactly) I find myself fumbling on parallels that aren't really there.

TheOne
10 May 2011, 07:27 PM
Existence cannot "exist" without non-existence both of which are inherent properties of reality. Just like you cannot have up without down, you cannot have sound without no-sound. The inseparability of the two are beyond comprehension of the mind, that's why many spiritual teachers teach that in order to realize the truth, one must stop trying to realize, because attempting to, in and of itself defeats the purpose.

SOV
10 May 2011, 09:59 PM
If you say so, up without down....etc, your idea of reality has a seer and the seen. Then it has to be dualistic and not 'the one' reality.
But actually, the reality is ONE and it is mere existence. How can one see the seer?
I think ur idea of reality is an object filling the gap.like saying There is only 'one' star in the sky and that is reality. But who is the one seeing the star?

Sahasranama
11 May 2011, 12:25 AM
Existence cannot "exist" without non-existence both of which are inherent properties of reality. Just like you cannot have up without down, you cannot have sound without no-sound. The inseparability of the two are beyond comprehension of the mind, that's why many spiritual teachers teach that in order to realize the truth, one must stop trying to realize, because attempting to, in and of itself defeats the purpose.
....because there does not exist anything to realise. This is pure Buddhism.

anirvan
11 May 2011, 02:18 AM
so maybe you want to change your username? :cool1:

No i will not change my user name,but i may change to vaishnava sadhu:Cool:

anirvan
11 May 2011, 02:25 AM
Existence cannot "exist" without non-existence both of which are inherent properties of reality. Just like you cannot have up without down, you cannot have sound without no-sound. The inseparability of the two are beyond comprehension of the mind, that's why many spiritual teachers teach that in order to realize the truth, one must stop trying to realize, because attempting to, in and of itself defeats the purpose.

The above analogy is totally out of context to real meaning of advita. existence can"t be without non-existence???
Dear,non-existence is itself a existence! dont look at non-existence in materialistic realm where non-existence is actually emptiness.

There is past,future,no creation or dstruction.its only huge presence and only existence.

TheOne
11 May 2011, 06:13 AM
If you say so, up without down....etc, your idea of reality has a seer and the seen. Then it has to be dualistic and not 'the one' reality.
But actually, the reality is ONE and it is mere existence. How can one see the seer?
I think ur idea of reality is an object filling the gap.like saying There is only 'one' star in the sky and that is reality. But who is the one seeing the star?


It's not dualistic, because they are inseparable. A wave cannot exist without a trough. I don't understand your metaphor regarding the star.

A star only exists because there is a background and empty space to contrast it.


I think this video sums up my belief that there is a unification in these apparently different beliefs. Starting around 6:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmW3Q-cd0U&feature=relmfu

Mana
15 June 2011, 05:31 AM
Oh boy!

I see a tree, branches separated geographically and temporally. Each one supporting the other in its own special way.

I should like to suggest that, an understanding of the four stages of sound may reveal to us that all philosophy's originate in Prana taking the form that Ishvara, Prakriti impose. To be seen and then transposed to word by seers who them selves are just petals on the flowers of a tree whos nectar we may consume so that the tree may grow further.

To make comparison is to compare one branch of a tree to another. What of its roots and the water that it drinks?
Are the fruit not all of a kind?

To cling so tightly to one branch so as to deny the benefit of the rest are we not trying to reassure our selves of its very existence, to free our selves from doubt?

Aum Shakti.

Iain