Can we let go of Hinduism?

[Surya Deva]

Namaste,

It is amazing that an account is dormant for >1 year, then the person comes back and goes on a posting binge about everything controversial. In one of his 'previous incarnation' (before hibernation) posts, he claims that he once went to a college function organized by sikhs and did not know that it was a sikh function until he talked to one of the persons present there, is mind boggling. How much hogwash are we supposed to believe or tolerate?

UNBELIEVABLE!

Pranam.

Relax my friend, I am just a fellow Hindu floating about some ideas. Hindus have never been intolerant about discussing ideas, no matter how controversial they are. The fact that I am posting to "controversial topics" is simply because they are the most interesting. I have recently been invited to the forum by a HDF member. I posted here in the past, but did not post here again for a while due to other preoccupations, one of which included a 6 month spiritual visit to India. I am now free to post again and obviously my interests lie very strongly in Hinduism.

Please do not be so insecure as to suspect a conspiracy in anybody broaching subjects that you consider controversial. First, be sure that this is the case, before accusing people.

[Surya Deva]

Hindus have seperated themselves from the other dharma traditions, Buddhism and Jainism, which even though were moralistic in nature, were identified with the label nastika. If we look at sciences, it is true that they are all interconnected, but we still have to make distinctions in order to focus our attention on one discipline like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology etc. This is not just a western idea, but in India too names are given to the different sciences and philosophies. Hence, a lot of Sanskrit works begin with atha to signify the subject matter: Atha yoganushasanam, Atha'to Brahma Jijnasa, etc. We cannot let go of all identifications of language. When I say a word, you understand what I am talking about. If we let go of all identifications, there would be no possible way to communicate. I would say yoga and you would think of a banana or you would say Surya and I would think of a bicycle. Even in advaita vedanta, the distinction is made between absolute reality and relative reality, known as paramarthika satya/ vyavaharika satya. If someone asks you whether you are you a man or a woman, what will you answer, Shivo'ham Shivo'ham? At least in our everyday communications we should be affirmative of our identity.

I think you bring a fair point, and you are correct that Hindu's have separated themselves from other dharmic traditions like Buddhism and Jainism with the nastika/astika dichotomy. However, this is primarily because they present worldviews that are completely divergent from the Vedic worldview, how would they consider traditions that are not divergent from the Vedic worldview? Again my caution is that we must be careful not to turn Hinduism only into a geographic identity. There is an obvious fallacy in localizing a religion that claims to be eternal and cosmic.

I understand your point about the necessity of naming things clearly and you bring up the correct reference to Advaita, which makes a distinction between temporal reality and absolute reality. However, what you omit is that Advaita does not give this temporal reality ontological status, but considers it is only a pragmatic reality or transactional reality(the literal meaning of vyavaharika), meaning that it only for the purpose of worldly communication that we have language, language itself does not point to any real entities. As whatever we perceive is only name and form, but not an actual substance itself(e.g., gold necklace, gold ring and gold statue are only names and forms of the same substance gold)

The Advaita argument is that reality is one indivisible whole, that any kind of divisions that may be perceived in this one indivisible whole are nothing more than false constructions of language. Thus language only has importance insofar as it serves our pragmatic needs. Thus we should ask does the term 'Hinduism' suit us for pragmatic purposes and are there better alternatives to convey its real meaning of sanatana dharma, cosmic and eternal religion?
To that end I will reiterate there is an obvious fallacy in the word 'Hinduism' because it is geographic, and literally means the religion of the people of the Indus. How can the religion of the people of the Indus be at the same time the eternal and cosmic religion?

It can only be the eternal and cosmic religion if its principles are pre-existent before they are discovered by the people of the Indus. This means these principles can also be discovered by any other people, only the Indus people just happen to be the first ones in known history. Theoretically, these principles can be discovered by any people anywhere in the universe. Now imagine that there are a blue people that live in another part of the universe. One day they come to our planet and introduce their blue religion to us. The blue religion teaches exactly the same worldview as the people of the Indus, except their history, traditions, language, scriptures, symbols and cultural forms are completely different.

Now will the blue people be considered astika or nastika by the people of the Indus? Obviously they should be considered astika, for their worldview is not at all divergent from the people of the Indus. In the same way we can consider Sikhism and Tantra astika traditions, despite their allegiance to different scriptures. In the same way we can recognize in the past that people in different parts of the world, like Indonesia had a similar religion.
Similarly, I submit, that modern humans today have a religion that is very similar to SD which goes by the name spirituality. Its meaning more closely approximates to SD than the term Hinduism.

We really need to ask ourselves an important question: Why Hinduism? Why do we feel the need to preserve the old Indus tradition, the same lineages, the same scriptures, the same cultural forms, the same rituals? When Hinduism itself is historically dynamic and changed several times to meet the challenges of new historical periods, why should it not do the same to meet the challenges of our current postmodern age where identities are collapsing(geographic, gender, sexual, social) Are we not so to speak flogging a dead horse by desperately trying to hold onto tradition?

It is my opinion that Hinduism needs to be brought up to date with the 21st century and to meet the challenges and the needs of a 21st century people, otherwise it will most certainly die out. In this age of globalization we are no longer living in a world with fixed geographic boundaries, but in a global village(the Vedic ideal of Vasudeva kutumbukum) and thus modern Hindus should identify with global concerns as opposed to local concerns. Unfortunately, in my recent trip to the ashrams of India, I found that so many ashrams are following and protecting dead traditions, which really have no place in the 21st century scientific-technological age.

My suggestion is that us modern Hindus need to join and strengthen the new age religion of global spirituality by bringing all our insights and understanding into it, rather than arrogantly reject it because it is not part of our tradition or because we are so much better than them. The new-age movement is in its infancy still, but it is not going to go away now, more and more people around the world are now subscribing to it, and it is backed up by many scientists itself. Its influence is being felt in every strata of society. This is the 21st century avatar of Hinduism; let us embrace it, and contribute to its development.

[Surya Deva]

Agree no exclusion, but thenyou (not you specifically) will be parked at the Tamasic level. The faith is not football or cricket to watch and admire. One needs to put the boots on; a hindu must climb up the ladder.

We are already parked at the tamasic level because we are in body consciousness. The aim is to eventually transcend the tamasic level, but there are different ways of doing they all take a lot of time.

Yes and No. A kid needs to learn alphabets before becoming a Kalidasa (or Shakespeare).

But of course there are many kinds of alphabets, not just one. Thus there are many different paths, not just one.

I remember those early morning hours, just out of bed, fresh and full of youthful energy and optimism...then I nervously looked at my elders and I knew I am looking at my future and I realized the party isn’t going to last forever. And on those days I didn’t think of alcohol or tasty food or a great game; what am I to do right now not to regret later? Unknowingly I was looking for saadhana and not ‘superfluous’ elusive spirituality.

I agree that the honeymoon period does not last forever, but for some it lasts longer than for others. We are all on different rungs of the spiritual ladder, going at our own pace. However, none of us really know where we are on the spiritual ladder compared to somebody else(only our atman knows this) I do meet a lot of people who have a spiritual superiority complex and they look down on you spiritually, when in actuality they maybe lower down than you are. This is why it serves no useful purpose to go around judging people where they are spiritually.

I love them both... But then the conclusions of contemporary research are heading towards the same ancient hindu declarations: Infinite or ananth. I still cant fathom the meaning of ananth, my intellect cant comprehend this infinite cosmos. What is it? So we smart people will have to ‘prove’ it, and that’s a tall order.. the hindu scholars who have introduced the term are the originators of the base model, lets not ignore them.

Are Hindu scholars originaters or discoverers? If I said that Newton was the originator of gravity, could you see the obvious fallacy in what I said?

Why reinvent the wheel for next 10,000 years. Lets make it a more perfect wheel instead, eventhough I doubt it. Wise vedic sages have done all the researchwork already for us. Why not educate the spiritual exiles, isn’t it selfish like holding infinite quantities of food grains in our silos whilst many are starving out there. Lets spread the good word, introduce our concepts whilst chatting away in pubs over a beer, they just don’t know it yet. Yesterday the republicans have forced Obama to reaffirm his faith to the American people for electoral purposes. The ‘other’ faiths are run by loonies and violent men. Hinduism is the only hope for the inquisitive…

This honestly really depends us whether all that can done in the field of spirituality has been exhausted by our ancient Risis? If one looks at the history of Hinduism one can see that clearly new developments have taken place. In the medieval age we see the development of Tantra, and during this period many new systems arise like very detailed maps of the human energy system(chakras, nadis etc) and new physical techniques to work directly with the energy system of the body(e.g., Hatha Yoga, Kriya Yoga) New philosophies emerge like Spandana. This clearly suggests that our ancient Risis have NOT done everything that needs to be done. New research is still possible.

In modern times a lot of new research has emerged in the field of spirituality, for example biofeedback, sensory deprivation tanks, remote viewing, hemi-synch, bioenergetics and new detailed maps of human anatomy and psychological and consciousness states. Thus obviously new research is possible. We also have a greater understanding of the structure of the universe today such as its multidimensional nature, and can use that to exploit space-time, and perhaps even create new technologies to access other universes.

Advances in biology will allow us to enhance our human life span by hundreds of years and find more advanced yogic techniques to bring us into higher states of being.(This is already feasible by advances in nanotechnology and neurbiology)

It is a very romantic idea, which I have fallen for in the past to think that in ancient times we knew everything already. But the reality is we obviously know a lot more today than we did in ancient times in every field of study. Therefore Hindus should definitely not act like snobs and turn their noses up at modern spirituality, pretending their Risis had already known everything. We need to actively participate in modern spirituality and bring all out insights and understanding to it.

There is a term for this: grandha (scripture/ book) chouryam ( theft) or plagiarism.

It is not considered plagiarism if you actively borrow from public knowledge. Hinduism is a thousands years old storehouse of knowledge available to our modern researchers, and they are of course making use of it to build up on the research. There is no plagiarism, because modern researchers do in fact acknowledge their borrowings. It is not unknown for example that Naom Chomsky acknowledged his borrowing from Panini, or Carl Jung acknowledges his borrowing from Patanjali, or Schodinger acknowledged his borrowing from Vedanta. Today, in the field of transpersonal psychology Hindu scriptures are widely referenced.

But it would be simply incorrect to say that our modern understanding of say quantum field theory is plagiarized from Hindu Akasha, rather we have a far more detailed and practical knowledge of the Akasha than the Hindus had. It is indeed remarkable that the ancient Hindus knew about the quantum field, but they obviously did not know as much as we know. Moreover, our knowledge about the quantum field does not come from Hindu scriptures, but from research in quantum mechanics.

[Sahasranama]

You complain about the geography of the Indus valley not being sufficient to define Sanatana Dharma, but then you talk about "new age". You are using double standards everywhere. You are going through an existential crisis, leaving your old religion, not understanding and feeling at home with Hindu practices. Whether you want to follow new age or Hinduism is something you'll have to decide for yourself. If you decide to become a new age follower, that is fine, but don't try to force new age thinking on Hinduism as a whole.

[Surya Deva]

You complain about the geography of the Indus valley not being sufficient to define Sanatana Dharma, but then you talk about "new age". You are using double standards everywhere. You are going through an existential crisis, leaving your old religion, not understanding and feeling at home with Hindu practices. Whether you want to follow new age or Hinduism is something you'll have to decide for yourself. If you decide to become a new age follower, that is fine, but don't try to force new age thinking on Hinduism as a whole.

I struggle to see what you mean by I am using double standards. I am pointing out an obvious problem in using a geographic term to refer to a universal, cosmic/eternal religion. The term 'spirituality' is not geographic.

You are going through an existential crisis, leaving your old religion, not understanding and feeling at home with Hindu practices.

I think you should refrain from being personal. It serves no useful purpose to throw about accusations that you cannot prove. Whether I am going through an existential crisis or not, makes no difference to the ideas I am discussing here. If I cannot discuss these ideas on a Hindu forum, then this obviously is against the democratic, pluralistic and intellectual spirit of Hinduism which is tolerant of all ideas and has never shyed away from discussion and debate. In which case I will simply stop posting and keep my ideas to myself.

What is a Hindu practice anyway? Hinduism includes everything from meditation, prayer, worship, service, yoga, contemplation, fire sacrifices, pilgrimages, to simply living a moral life. One is free to choose as many or as little as they want. Of course these practices are hardly specific to Hinduism.

I can tell you what a Muslim practice or what a Christian practice is very clearly, but I cannot tell you what a Hindu practice is clearly. Hinduism has no particular founder, no specific traditions, no defined practices, no defined scriptures, no formal clergy. Hinduism rather refers to a particular worldview of reality and attitude to life as spiritual development. It really is just about spirituality. Spirituality is of course ones personal decision(how much or how little you want to do)

If one looks at the nature and beliefs of modern spirituality one can hardly tell it apart from Hinduism:

The New Age Movement is in a class by itself. Unlike most formal religions, it has no holy text, central organization, membership, formal clergy, geographic center, dogma, creed, etc.

A number of fundamental beliefs are held by many -- but not all -- New Age followers; individuals are encouraged to "shop" for the beliefs and practices that they feel most comfortable with:

Monism: All that exists is derived from a single source of divine energy.

Pantheism: All that exists is God; God is all that exists. This leads naturally to the concept of the divinity of the individual, that we are all Gods. They do not seek God as revealed in a sacred text or as exists in a remote heaven; they seek God within the self and throughout the entire universe.

Panentheism: God is all that exists. God is at once the entire universe, and transcends the universe as well.

Reincarnation: After death, we are reborn and live another life as a human. This cycle repeats itself many times. This belief is similar to the concept of transmigration of the soul in Hinduism.

Karma: The good and bad deeds that we do adds and subtracts from our accumulated record, our karma. At the end of our life, we are rewarded or punished according to our karma by being reincarnated into either a painful or good new life. This belief is linked to that of reincarnation and is also derived from Hinduism

An Aura is believed to be an energy field radiated by the body. Invisible to most people, it can be detected by some as a shimmering, multi-colored field surrounding the body. Those skilled in detecting and interpreting auras can diagnose an individual's state of mind, and their spiritual and physical health.

Personal Transformation A profoundly intense mystical experience will lead to the acceptance and use of New Age beliefs and practices. Guided imagery, hypnosis, meditation, and (sometimes) the use of hallucinogenic drugs are useful to bring about and enhance this transformation. Believers hope to develop new potentials within themselves: the ability to heal oneself and others, psychic powers, a new understanding of the workings of the universe, etc. Later, when sufficient numbers of people have achieved these powers, a major spiritual, physical, psychological and cultural planet-wide transformation is expected.

Ecological Responsibility: A belief in the importance of uniting to preserve the health of the earth, which is often looked upon as Gaia, (Mother Earth) a living entity.

Universal Religion: Since all is God, then only one reality exists, and all religions are simply different paths to that ultimate reality. The universal religion can be visualized as a mountain, with many sadhanas (spiritual paths) to the summit. Some are hard; others easy. There is no one correct path. All paths eventually reach the top. They anticipate that a new universal religion which contains elements of all current faiths will evolve and become generally accepted worldwide.

New World Order As the Age of Aquarius unfolds, a New Age will develop. This will be a utopia in which there is world government, and end to wars, disease, hunger, pollution, and poverty. Gender, racial, religious and other forms of discrimination will cease. People's allegiance to their tribe or nation will be replaced by a concern for the entire world and its people.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/newage.htm

This is more or less identical to what we call Hinduism. Thus would it not be safe to say Hinduism = spirituality. I submit that the ancient people of the Indus discovered spirituality very much like modern people have. Thus Hindus as being the first people in history to discover spirituality should work towards sharing their insights with modern spirituality. And that is exactly what has happened with many modern Hindu gurus. Much of the new-age today really is just the result of Hindu spirituality proliferating into the West via Hindu gurus. Many Hindu gurus do not call their spiritual teachings, "Hinduism"

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I honestly don't like to get into these kinds of arguments but ...

for the sake of the traditional Hindus who come here, its only fair to warn them of the New Age, not unlike the cancerous creeping-in-slowly methods of Christianity in India. Friendship evangelism, if you will.

So I can make several points. I've been to the bookstores, and seen what is there, talked with new-agers, but also traveled through and lived amongst traditional Hindus.

New age people have nothing to offer us that Hinduism doesn't already have.

When someone says there are few philosophical differences, that may very well be, but then if you actually watch the people perform, well, then you get a different story. At least this has been my experience.

1) New age people tend to come with assertiveness training and ego. I've had discussions where they started telling me all about Hinduism, mispronouncing half the Sanskrit words (like Ganesha for example) wrong and 'teaching me' in a condescending manner. Often the concepts are some strange western-eastern mish mash. An example is thinking the Sanskrit Aum symbol is the equivalent of the hippy peace symbol. Usually, and most especially if I'm in the right mood, I just politely move on, as from experience, another factor is that they like to argue. If I do try to politely point something out, ego driven hairs bristle.

2) There is much confusion, just as there is in universalism. You can ask pointed questions like "What happens when you die?" or "What is the goal of life?" and you'll get a vague response somewhere between heaven/hell, moksha has been achieved already, reincarnation, or various combinations of both.

3) Often morals, especially sexual ones, aren't clear. It's perfectly fine to indulge in promiscuity, free love, full moon skinny dipping, and the like. This just has nothing to do with Hinduism.

4) On the path, it seems they like to start at the top, and work their way down ... intellectually. "I'm self-realised, so I can do whatever I want." ... or other silly statements.

5) Avoidance of temples and Hindus. Several times I've invited people with Ganesha statues in their new-age stores (because it's cool, I presume) and they won't come. They see Hinduism as just another Christianity, stuck in dogma, and actually going to a temple is beneath them. Ganesha is still cool though. (If they only knew.)

To summarise, from my experience, its often been talk the talk but not walk the walk.

Aum Namasivaya

[satay]

Namaste Surya,
Your proposal though based on some good points has no practical value. It is not practical to let go off Hinduism. For all it's faults and traditions it is what it is. It is part of us Hindus and we are of it.

[Believer]

Namaste,

.........I posted here in the past, but did not post here again for a while due to other preoccupations, one of which included a 6 month spiritual visit to India.....

A person who is out to destroy Hinduism will probably suffocate to death in 6 months in India, unless of course, his mission was to hone his skills in denigrating Hinduism, and to prove it to be obsolete for the current and future generations - like an ex-Hindu cum Xitian missionary.

Very clever mission statement (spiritual journey) and obtuse, argumentative explanations of everything are SO VERY repulsive!

Pranam.

I have recently been invited to the forum by a HDF member.

PS Whoever heard of being invited to post here?

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I strongly urge anyone who feels mixing and matching is a good way to go to read this:

http://himalayanacademy.com/basics/point/

Hopefully it will give you a clearer understanding of how the two don't mix very well.

Aum Namasivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

@ Surya Deva ... This came from one of your first posts


" I just recently joined this forum for discussion of Hinduism and related matters. I am a graduate in Philosophy and have a strong interest in Hindu Philosophy."

I believe there is a big difference between this statement, and practising Hinduism. Of course anyone is welcome to study Hinduism. We even accept converts if that is the result of the study.

Aum Namasivaya