liberal vs. literal Hindu

[Bandit]

liberal vs. literal Hindu

I was reading in a few places & forums where Hinduism would like for the world to be Brahma Maya. This may be a good thing if everyone agreed.
If I were to convert to Hinduism as a liberal Hindu, I would like to share that view and ask some honest questions.

Is it possible to be Hindu by rejecting 80% of the Vedas & only keep the 20% that I agree with?
I would insert the remaining 20% Veda & Bhavagad text with the 66 books of the Bible.
I also would want to worship & recognize only one God as one person instead of the core 33 Devas & different manifestations or celestial beings & replace with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob & that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords & eternal life comes through him.
Is this compatible from a liberal perspective in the Hindu Religion?

I like some of the Bhavagad & Yogi & find its core principle simple & easy to do.
However, instead of the different chants & using the entire Gita, it would be more sufficient & rewarding for me to say the prayers from the bible & end my prayers in the name of Jesus.
Is this appropriate among the majority of Hindus?

I believe in the possibility of some reincarnation if the one God would want to do that for a purpose, but exclude any absolute dogma concerning reincarnation & do not believe everyone is reincarnated, especially into an animal. As a liberal Hindu i would disagree with the literal law of Karma & multiple lives.
Would this teaching & belief make me a good example for a Hindu?

I respect the cow & its sacred relationship to Hindus, but do not find it sacred in the same literal sense, for me. I like fish, but sometimes I also like to eat pork & beef.
Is eating beef is more of a liberal view in the Hindu Religion?

I know that not all Hindus believe exactly the same. Please note this would only be a liberal view of Hinduism. I am being very serious & humble in my questions & application. this is not meant to disrespect, debate or change the Hindu faith.

I may have a few other questions & thank you in advance for the replies.

 

[Hustle Kong]

As much as I know about Hindu and Christian belief, this would not be acceptable to either (at least as far as your average Hindu or Christian goes).

I could, however, be entirely incorrect.

 

[jiii]

I am somewhat compelled to ask why you would want to be a Hindu if you didn't believe in 80% of their scriptures? I mean, being a Hindu isn't really anything special, so if you don't particularly like most of their scriptures, just enjoy the ones you do like. There is no need to determine whether your Hindu or not. It sounds that by saying 'liberal Hindu', your really trying classify your personal philosophies. Frankly, if you see the profound nature of your own personal philosophy, then what you have is better than Hinduism. So, if people ask, you might say you got a little something out of reading Hindu scriptures. This does not, however, mean that you are obligated to establish what type of Hindu you are, and if so, how much Hindu you are. You don't really need to worry about that, as the parts of the scriptures you enjoy are really the point.

As far as the specifics of compatability, there isn't much. Christian religion and Hindu religion are two very different religions. Even though they may aim toward the same truth, they do not share any mythology and neither religion really has any reason to go out of its way to determine what aspects of world religion it approves of and disapproves of.

It sounds like you're not particularly sure of what you believe or don't believe, so before you start considering whether you are a Christian or a Hindu or what have you, you should first determine if 'taking on' the title of a specific religion is something that really appeals to you, or works for you, at this point in time. Maybe it's not. People usually will choose a specific religion for themselves when they've decided to devote themselves to a particular doctrine. However, living by our own personal spiritual philosophy can be just as fruitful. A person is no less holy just because they don't adhere to a specific church or temple or other spiritual tradition.

 

[Bandit]

i see some good replies here, i will get back to these soon as i have time.
at this point i see some open doors. not sure how long they will stay open.

thanks jiii & thank you Hustle Kong

 

[Pathless]

Bandit, are you looking for a specific answer?

Hinduism could be considered a rather "liberal" religion (rather than "literal")in general--aside from the caste system--and jii's response seems to reflect that aspect of it. Yet I'm sure you can find fundementalist Hindus as well, if that is what you are looking for.

 

[Bandit]

Bandit, are you looking for a specific answer?

Hinduism could be considered a rather "liberal" religion (rather than "literal")in general--aside from the caste system--and jii's response seems to reflect that aspect of it. Yet I'm sure you can find fundementalist Hindus as well, if that is what you are looking for.

hey Pathless
thanks. i was looking for answers based on my questions, but dont seem to be getting that. they are kind of sort of being ignored.

it appears much of the writings are myth, so it would be pointless to literally believe in them. even for the fundalmentalist. i think i would need something a little more substantial to literally believe & so it is not too exciting so far.
..so i would be a liberal hindu & from that i would guess that most hindus are liberal and have no core to ther beliefs. that is what i am getting so far- yet i think there is more going on than that.

i had dinner with a hindu friend last week & he did not seem too excited about his religion when we talked briefly. actually i felt like he was pushing me away for some reason. i also get the same feeling from my neighbors who are also hindu. it could be my 'liberal' views.

thanks for pointing out the difference. at this point i am getting very mixed signals & i kind of suspected that would happen.

it appears i can believe & discuss, anything i want to in the Hindu religion & still be a liberal Hindu.
is that correct?

 

[Obvious Child]

For many, 'Hindu' is more of a culture than a religion. Various religious reformers in India considered themselves Hindu atheists, and others were Hindu Christians/Christian Hindus. As for your specific points: check out the Brahmo Samaj and its various offshoots. Many ate beef, rejected animal reincarnation etc.

If you genuinely entered into a Hindu culture and viewpoint (remember orthopraxy can be as important as orthodoxy) you may be a Hindu. Certainly many Hindus have believed in the single Divine Lord, probably many more than worship 33 core Devas.

If you simply used some of the core texts, probably not.

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste All,

Interesting topic and replies.

I would say that Hinduism can be as liberal or conservative as one wants depending on the particular tradition one chooses to follow. There are many different traditions and many different viewpoints on a given subject as I think we all know by now.

I was reading in a few places & forums where Hinduism would like for the world to be Brahma Maya.

Whether the world is considered maya, and even the definition of the term maya is different in different Hindu traditions. So, even if one says that the entire creation is maya one does not necessarily mean it to be an illusory existence.

If I were to convert to Hinduism as a liberal Hindu

What you refer to as “liberal” Hinduism, if I understand correctly, is actually universalist Hinduism exists as a popular stream of Hinduism in the west. Many of these univeralist branches do not believe in any formal conversions, and some even don’t use the H word (Hindu), and use the term Indian religion, or something of the sort.

Is it possible to be Hindu by rejecting 80% of the Vedas & only keep the 20% that I agree with?

It is up to the person, the tradition s/he follows and whether s/he wants to use the term Hindu. If you want to believe in only the parts that are compatible with another religion, why even use the term “Hindu”? You are, of course, free to do this on a personal level, but traditionally speaking, the answer would be no. This is not to say that such things do not exist or have not existed.

I would insert the remaining 20% Veda & Bhavagad text with the 66 books of the Bible. I also would want to worship & recognize only one God as one person instead of the core 33 Devas & different manifestations or celestial beings & replace with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob & that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords & eternal life comes through him. Is this compatible from a liberal perspective in the Hindu Religion?

Whether the 33 Devas of the Vedas are individual beings or aspectual personalities of the same being is the question to ask. Many will tell you the ultimate Vedic message is also of one Divine, and all the Devas are aspectual personalities of the same. Seeing one through the many is a common theme you will find in Hindu thought.

There are many liberal perspectives in Hinduism that have arisen in the last 200 years. There is no one liberal Hindu perspective either. Many modern “Hindu” movements, but not all, lean on the universalist side. Some do accept prophets, saints, messiahs from the Judeo-Christian and other traditions. However, I don’t know of any liberal Hindu perspectives that reject 80% of the Veda. The general theme among univeralist Hindu movements is to use Hinduism as an umbrella religion, and to explain all other religions, prophets and mystic experiences in the language of the Hindu scriptures. In other words, they accept more than they reject.

I like some of the Bhavagad & Yogi & find its core principle simple & easy to do. However, instead of the different chants & using the entire Gita, it would be more sufficient & rewarding for me to say the prayers from the bible & end my prayers in the name of Jesus. Is this appropriate among the majority of Hindus?

Is it not possible to use the Bible and end your prayers in the name of Jesus, while admiring the tradition of the Bhagavad-Gita and the yogis, and still call yourself a Christian? Or is it that you find the two contrary to one another?

I believe in the possibility of some reincarnation if the one God would want to do that for a purpose, but exclude any absolute dogma concerning reincarnation & do not believe everyone is reincarnated, especially into an animal. As a liberal Hindu i would disagree with the literal law of Karma & multiple lives. Would this teaching & belief make me a good example for a Hindu?

What exactly about the above beliefs/statements would you classify as being “Hindu”?

I respect the cow & its sacred relationship to Hindus, but do not find it sacred in the same literal sense, for me. I like fish, but sometimes I also like to eat pork & beef. Is eating beef is more of a liberal view in the Hindu Religion?

Eating beef neither makes one a non-Hindu, nor does not eating it make a Hindu. There are Hindus who eat beef, and Hindus who don’t eat beef. The same goes for any other meat product. Traditionally though in Indian Hinduism beef is considered a taboo for various reasons.

it appears much of the writings are myth, so it would be pointless to literally believe in them.

Whether the writings (I imagine you mean the Puranas) are myths are a matter of personal opinion. There are those who believe that the Puranas are myths, and those who consider them to be absolutely true. Either way, Hinduism is not defined by the Puranic literature, nor is the Puranaic literature the basis of Sanatana Dharma.

..so i would be a liberal hindu & from that i would guess that most hindus are liberal and have no core to ther beliefs. that is what i am getting so far- yet i think there is more going on than that.

Hinduism has strong core beliefs, but not all core beliefs of every denomination are the same. What causes confusion many-a-times is that Hinduism is not a religion like Christianity, but is rather a fellowship of multiple religions, which share several core beliefs, and hence are collectively considered one belief system. In reality, the term Hindu is broader than saying Judeo-Christian-Islamic. If I had to guess, most people who consider themselves as Hindus are not liberal to the point of diluting their religious beliefs with those of others. I would say that most, however, do believe that other religions are not necessarily wrong, and deserve our tolerance and understanding.

it appears i can believe & discuss, anything i want to in the Hindu religion & still be a liberal Hindu. is that correct?

As individuals we can and may have any opinion on any subject. There is nothing in Hinduism that enforces conformity, or stifles individual thought or opinion. However, serious seekers learn from Hindu masters, and follow the specific teachings of that master and lineage. The masters themselves belong to a long line of teachers from a specific teaching lineage (sampradayas), all of which can be categorized into a handful of denominations. The collections of the teaching lineages and denominations is what we call Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.

I hope that helps.

OM Shanti,
A.

 

[Agnideva]

Hinduism could be considered a rather "liberal" religion (rather than "literal")in general--aside from the caste system--and jii's response seems to reflect that aspect of it. Yet I'm sure you can find fundementalist Hindus as well, if that is what you are looking for.

Namaste Pathless,

I agree with you here that there are both "liberal" and orthodox streams of thought within Hinduism. Even the caste issue that has been such a part of Indian Hinduism is now breaking down. After all, caste is not the defining feature of Hinduism. It is a defining feature of South Asian society, which has been for so long supported and rationalized by the Hindu orthodoxy. There are many many Hindu masters who have argued, and quite effectively I might add, that that casteism is contrary to central principles of the Vedas and Sanatana Dharma.

OM Shanti,
A.

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste Obvious,

For many, 'Hindu' is more of a culture than a religion.

This is true. This is possible because the medieval term "Hindu" actually means Indian. In the Indian context, Hinduism is a mixture of religious beliefs and traditional Indian culture. However, not all Hindus are Indians, so it becomes necessary to separate the reference to ethnicity from the reference to the followers of Sanatana Dharma.

Certainly many Hindus have believed in the single Divine Lord, probably many more than worship 33 core Devas.

Personally I don't know anyone who worships 33 crore (330 million) Devas . Nor do I know if this is possible.

There are two thoughts on the number 33 crore:

a. the number 33 crore is a play on the number 33 which is the number of Devas in the Vedas.

b. there are 33 crore Devas ("shiny ones") who are archangelic type beings who reside in the highest heavenly realms and control all aspects of existence. The 33 crore Devas are separate, yet inseparable, from the One Divine Being.

OM Shanti,
A.

 

[Bandit]

Hi Agnideva & thank you for the replies.

I would say that Hinduism can be as liberal or conservative as one wants depending on the particular tradition one chooses to follow. There are many different traditions and many different viewpoints on a given subject as I think we all know by now.

By tradition, I would think this is referring to sect. Correct?
The liberal part would depend on what sect while not diminishing the core?
Or, is this a mix & match of the different cores?

Whether the world is considered maya, and even the definition of the term maya is different in different Hindu traditions. So, even if one says that the entire creation is maya one does not necessarily mean it to be an illusory existence.

I agree. But many people claim a title as hindu or christian, then say maya is illusory existence & not literal, especially in any kind of worship & relationship. This is a bit contrary to those with experience of a relationship of maya.

What you refer to as “liberal” Hinduism, if I understand correctly, is actually universalist Hinduism exists as a popular stream of Hinduism in the west. Many of these univeralist branches do not believe in any formal conversions, and some even don’t use the H word (Hindu), and use the term Indian religion, or something of the sort.

I was going to get to this & I am glad you mentioned it. I see a difference because it tends to keep some beliefs from all religions, but it is not possible to keep them all & be in agreement, because there are core writings & teachings. I would be extreme liberal & even put the universalist Hinduism out of business.

It is up to the person, the tradition s/he follows and whether s/he wants to use the term Hindu. If you want to believe in only the parts that are compatible with another religion, why even use the term “Hindu”? You are, of course, free to do this on a personal level, but traditionally speaking, the answer would be no. This is not to say that such things do not exist or have not existed.

We see this the same. I do not understand why people do this, but they do. Many only pick parts & dump what does not fit their needs & expect other to accept this. I could honestly not do this to any religion, especially the foundations on which they stand.

Whether the 33 Devas of the Vedas are individual beings or aspectual personalities of the same being is the question to ask. Many will tell you the ultimate Vedic message is also of one Divine, and all the Devas are aspectual personalities of the same. Seeing one through the many is a common theme you will find in Hindu thought.

there is a similar dogmas in Christianity, thus one reason for different sects. I don’t feel this should be something that brings division & I wish Christianity was more tolerant & understanding.

There are many liberal perspectives in Hinduism that have arisen in the last 200 years. There is no one liberal Hindu perspective either. Many modern “Hindu” movements, but not all, lean on the universalist side. Some do accept prophets, saints, messiahs from the Judeo-Christian and other traditions. However, I don’t know of any liberal Hindu perspectives that reject 80% of the Veda. The general theme among univeralist Hindu movements is to use Hinduism as an umbrella religion, and to explain all other religions, prophets and mystic experiences in the language of the Hindu scriptures. In other words, they accept more than they reject.

thank you for bringing this up. You may be suprized at how many people today do this to other religions as well. I did not think it was a hindu movement in general. It is more of a ‘modern’ thing, diminishing other religions to nothing. The Veda is a core to all Hindu beliefs, or so it seems & this cannot be removed.

Is it not possible to use the Bible and end your prayers in the name of Jesus, while admiring the tradition of the Bhagavad-Gita and the yogis, and still call yourself a Christian? Or is it that you find the two contrary to one another?

yes this is possible, but is it possible for Hinduism to end all prayers in Jesus Name?
if I said a prayer from hindusim, like for peace, I would end it in Jesus Name, because I believe all prayers go through Jesus.
I don’t think most of Bhagavad is contrary, the emphasis on SELF is just different.
titles are only used to be able to relate, as in this conversation.

What exactly about the above beliefs/statements would you classify as being “Hindu”?

From what I understand, reincarnation is indeed a core & foundation of Hinduism. not saying there are some who do not believe in reincarnation, but I think most do. There may be many doctrines concerning this. I don’t know. If all these written doctrines of reincarnation are removed, & we change it to only one life on earth, then we go to be with God. & maybe only sometimes someone may reincarnate only if God says so with no guarantee. Would this change the way people live & think in Hinduism? Would this be acceptable teaching & belief in the liberal view?
How would most Hindus relate & react if it were coming as a regular thought from my liberal view? Would they be glad?
The law of Karma is also a fundamental teaching in Hinduism. Is it not? Would it be ok in my liberal view to say it does not really matter what you do & nothing bad ever happens. There is no payment or curse, so you can do as you please. This would kind of mess things up in the Eternal Dharma, I think.

Eating beef neither makes one a non-Hindu, nor does not eating it make a Hindu. There are Hindus who eat beef, and Hindus who don’t eat beef. The same goes for any other meat product. Traditionally though in Indian Hinduism beef is considered a taboo for various reasons.

Traditionally, I hear it is not acceptable. Is this a more recent liberal teaching?

Whether the writings (I imagine you mean the Puranas) are myths are a matter of personal opinion. There are those who believe that the Puranas are myths, and those who consider them to be absolutely true. Either way, Hinduism is not defined by the Puranic literature, nor is the Puranaic literature the basis of Sanatana Dharma.

I realize the puranas are more cosmo histories & legends of gods & heroes but they are still related in a sense to Sanatana for those who believe them. Correct?

if I keep telling those who believe it is true, that the puranas & Sanatana Darma are not true & mostly myth, would this not begin to burden those who believe it is true? If someone truly believes, then what purpose is there to tell them it is not true, except to make them believe it is not true? Do you see what I mean? For example I keep going through all the threads here & repeatedly give my liberal view that changes the teachings of Sanatana, because I exclude them, by inserting other beliefs from other religions or my own philosospy which differs greatly from the traditional views, would this be acceptable in Hinduism?

Hinduism has strong core beliefs, but not all core beliefs of every denomination are the same. What causes confusion many-a-times is that Hinduism is not a religion like Christianity, but is rather a fellowship of multiple religions, which share several core beliefs, and hence are collectively considered one belief system. In reality, the term Hindu is broader than saying Judeo-Christian-Islamic. If I had to guess, most people who consider themselves as Hindus are not liberal to the point of diluting their religious beliefs with those of others. I would say that most, however, do believe that other religions are not necessarily wrong, and deserve our tolerance and understanding.

I see you recognize there is a difference in Christianity, where the core is the same. Here you are saying there are many different cores in Hinduism, but within that particular tradition or denomination, the core of the tradition/denomination would still remain. In christianity the core remains the same, but there are many denominations. Sadly, the sects do not fellowship very well in the real world.
Are you saying one can mix & match the core beliefs?

Would it be ok for me to suggest that Krishna is not a real Lord & not a literal Savior? Krishna is just a regular man with some good teaching but not all. Would this become burdensome & contrary to those who believe Krishna is Lord? or is it acceptable?

If I am correct, in Hinduism, it is an expanding religion. New writings are accepted. Would it be contrary to try & stop or change this expansion & say no more writings in my liberal view? Or is it ok to do that?
I think the reason it varies so much is due to the many writings & different gods & goddesses with many descriptive arms & hands.

As individuals we can and may have any opinion on any subject. There is nothing in Hinduism that enforces conformity, or stifles individual thought or opinion. However, serious seekers learn from Hindu masters, and follow the specific teachings of that master and lineage. The masters themselves belong to a long line of teachers from a specific teaching lineage (sampradayas), all of which can be categorized into a handful of denominations. The collections of the teaching lineages and denominations is what we call Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.

I hope that helps.

It does help & I appreciate your time with this. If I were to diminish the Hindu masters by making them not real masters & make them of less value to those who follow the masters & remove many of their teachings, would this become tiring for those who follow a particular master? For example to disagree with a master would imply that I am not truly following that master all the way, only using him for the teachings that I like, but removing much of his authority as a master that has been gained & accepted with others. Would this liberal view & alterations make those people weary & somewhat confused, who follow the masters & his teaching?

I have one more question for you. Lets say, the lineage of a certain tribe who pass down an heirloom from generation to generation for thousands of years. This heirloom also comes with an inheritance. If these people are fiction, would the heirloom & inheritance also become fiction?

 

[Bandit]

For many, 'Hindu' is more of a culture than a religion. Various religious reformers in India considered themselves Hindu atheists, and others were Hindu Christians/Christian Hindus. As for your specific points: check out the Brahmo Samaj and its various offshoots. Many ate beef, rejected animal reincarnation etc.

If you genuinely entered into a Hindu culture and viewpoint (remember orthopraxy can be as important as orthodoxy) you may be a Hindu. Certainly many Hindus have believed in the single Divine Lord, probably many more than worship 33 core Devas.

If you simply used some of the core texts, probably not.

hi Obvious Child

this kind of reform seems to change the religion quite a bit. a Christian atheist or Hindu atheist does not seem to work, unless viewing it just from culture.

this is a good point on orthodoxy & orthopraxy. do you feel that to change the orthodoxy & texts too much would in return change some of orthoproxy?
i think it would to a degree & would appreciate your thoughts on that.

i am not in reference to things such as love & respect, but the personal relationship that can be found through both orthopraxy & orthodoxy.

this is informative, that more Hindus believe in one Lord than the 33 Devas. i would view these Devas more like angels - actually more like attributes of the one true Lord. that is probably not too liberal.

i understand Hindu is not the same as Hindusim. one can be a Hindu & also be a Christian or Muslim. i suppose the title christian or christianity would also be the difference there yet the culture can be very diverse.

i hope i am making sense.

 

[Bandit]

As much as I know about Hindu and Christian belief, this would not be acceptable to either (at least as far as your average Hindu or Christian goes).

I could, however, be entirely incorrect.

hello Hustle Kong

i think there would be some problems eventually also. especially when you consider the average.

 

[Bandit]

Hello Jiii

I am somewhat compelled to ask why you would want to be a Hindu if you didn't believe in 80% of their scriptures? I mean, being a Hindu isn't really anything special, so if you don't particularly like most of their scriptures, just enjoy the ones you do like. There is no need to determine whether your Hindu or not.

well, it does not really make sense to me either.

It sounds that by saying 'liberal Hindu', your really trying classify your personal philosophies. Frankly, if you see the profound nature of your own personal philosophy, then what you have is better than Hinduism. So, if people ask, you might say you got a little something out of reading Hindu scriptures. This does not, however, mean that you are obligated to establish what type of Hindu you are, and if so, how much Hindu you are. You don't really need to worry about that, as the parts of the scriptures you enjoy are really the point.

i think this is wise. it really is substituting my own personal philosophy. but what if my own philosophy is really mixed up to most people?
by what 'type' of hindu do you mean,... would this be the different sects, denominations & traditions?

As far as the specifics of compatability, there isn't much. Christian religion and Hindu religion are two very different religions. Even though they may aim toward the same truth, they do not share any mythology and neither religion really has any reason to go out of its way to determine what aspects of world religion it approves of and disapproves of.

i think they are very different religions also. for either to go out of its way to change or try to prove one over the other, would certainly bring some conflicts.

It sounds like you're not particularly sure of what you believe or don't believe, so before you start considering whether you are a Christian or a Hindu or what have you, you should first determine if 'taking on' the title of a specific religion is something that really appeals to you, or works for you, at this point in time. Maybe it's not. People usually will choose a specific religion for themselves when they've decided to devote themselves to a particular doctrine. However, living by our own personal spiritual philosophy can be just as fruitful. A person is no less holy just because they don't adhere to a specific church or temple or other spiritual tradition.

LOL- i am sure it does sound like i am not sure what i believe. that is kind of why i am doing this. iam doing my best here, for what little i know about your religion.

i dont really see too much meaning in titles but the meaning of the title can be severely changed. how many established Hindu temples do you think would allow such extreme liberal views that removes so much of the Veda? or removes the authority that is generally accepted by particular Masters?
these are of course established beliefs i am refering to.
would you view this as a challenge if you saw it all the time?
how much of a challenge would you say there is to change & alter basic Hinduism? by change, i mean the freedom that is found in that religion.

what if the own spiritual philosophy extremely changes the establsihed or more accepted view? do you think the liberal philosophy could become a hinderance to the main core & foundation, if the liberal Hindu view removes them? & vice versa...
i am not saying there is anything wrong with that persons choices either way, but do you think there will arise conflicts when the established belief meets with the personal belief that removes too much of the Veda & the basic core of a tradition by trying to claim such titles???

thank you again for the reply.

 

[jiii]

Well, I suppose that from a certain persepctive, religions of any kind are basically just models for what has been called many different names: "spiritual power", "faith", "enlightenment", the list goes on... I say this only because the real benefit that 'established' doctrines offer a spiritual seeker is in their clarification of that faith's path that is free of the eccentricities of the individual. With Hinduism, as well as any religion, this is the case. You could say that 'the Hindu' in a man is, excluding ritual dress or what have you, indistinguishable from the man. A man may be a dedicated and devoted Hindu, but he's still going to look mostly like a regular man that could, to the untrained observer, appear to be of any religion.

So, for example, when ancient people wanted to begin learning how "amazing" Indian men discovered their "spiritual power" or "wisdom", they invented Hinduism as an on-going system of teachings, texts, and ideas designed, in theory, to be an external replica of the inside of a Hindu man. That is to say, the entirity of the Hindu faith as it can be known through ideas and concepts is an attempt to cleave the essentials of the Hindu attitude from their "hiding places" in the physical body and transcribe them for teaching or reading. Thus, Hinduism is the best model that can be offered to explain the attitude of a Hindu, which is invisible to the senses.
My point, after all of this, is that people can, and probably will, argue back and forth forever about what it means to be a 'real' Hindu. However, a 'real' Hindu will see that this is all in vain, because he knows that every word ever said about Hinduism is really a one-sided abstraction of spiritual experience that is always available without saying a word. Bear in mind, this is not at all to say anything of the value of Hinduism. Though, it is important to keep this point in mind to get a broader perspective of the religion.

Furthermore, 'belief' seems to be a factor mentioned quite a bit. The fact is, there are plenty of Hindus that don't really "believe" in reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation, for example, is simply part and parcel to the doctrine to which they claim allegiance. More important than belief in reincarnation is understanding the implications of the idea and how it alludes to so many different feelings and sheds light upon many conceptual roadblocks. You can, but certainly do not have to, truly believe that you will be reincarnated. However, if you were to call yourself a Hindu, you should not be particularly opposed to understanding life using something like reincarnation as a conceptual model. You should feel comfortable with the mythologies even if you don't believe them to be literal truths. If, on the other hand, you specifically believe these ideas to be foolish, then this is ALSO belief. That is to say, you don't really know whether or not people are reincarnated. This is what you could call the 'prerequisite' attitude of the Hindu. "Maybe it's true, maybe not..." Determining if one wants to believe or disbelieve in reincarnation isn't the point. People that have been Hindus for eighty years still don't know and never will. Thinking of life as something that repeats over and over again can shed some light on ideas and ways of understanding yourself that you may never have considered...this is the point really. Therefore, many Masters of Eastern religion do not formally "believe" the more esoteric principles of their doctrines...BUT, they do understand that those things which at first are called and sometimes misinterpreted as "beliefs" are really paradoxical subjects for contemplation that can, in many individuals, awaken a more lucid understanding of the faith.

Hopefully, this can clarify things concerning the further questions you offered.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It sounds that by saying 'liberal Hindu', your really trying classify your personal philosophies. Frankly, if you see the profound nature of your own personal philosophy, then what you have is better than Hinduism. So, if people ask, you might say you got a little something out of reading Hindu scriptures. This does not, however, mean that you are obligated to establish what type of Hindu you are, and if so, how much Hindu you are. You don't really need to worry about that, as the parts of the scriptures you enjoy are really the point.

Chris

 

[Bandit]

The fact is, there are plenty of Hindus that don't really "believe" in reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation, for example, is simply part and parcel to the doctrine to which they claim allegiance. More important than belief in reincarnation is understanding the implications of the idea and how it alludes to so many different feelings and sheds light upon many conceptual roadblocks. You can, but certainly do not have to, truly believe that you will be reincarnated. However, if you were to call yourself a Hindu, you should not be particularly opposed to understanding life using something like reincarnation as a conceptual model. You should feel comfortable with the mythologies even if you don't believe them to be literal truths. If, on the other hand, you specifically believe these ideas to be foolish, then this is ALSO belief. That is to say, you don't really know whether or not people are reincarnated. This is what you could call the 'prerequisite' attitude of the Hindu. "Maybe it's true, maybe not..." Determining if one wants to believe or disbelieve in reincarnation isn't the point. People that have been Hindus for eighty years still don't know and never will. Thinking of life as something that repeats over and over again can shed some light on ideas and ways of understanding yourself that you may never have considered...this is the point really.

this is complicated because i see it in many of the dharmas. i suppose to use it as a way to contemplate how to be a better person in this life & how to achieve a higher goal, then that would be agood thing. the only other thing is, if you dont reincarnate, then what & where does the soul end up as. I know hinduism teaches the spirit goes on & seperates spirit of man from the flesh & that is also seperate from God in the diagrams.

Well, I suppose that from a certain persepctive, religions of any kind are basically just models for what has been called many different names: "spiritual power", "faith", "enlightenment", the list goes on...

Hopefully, this can clarify things concerning the further questions you offered.

yes it does clarify things.

i have another question for you Jiii or the others here.
if hinduism allows for these writings & the Vedas to continue & be extended, who (what organization) chooses what to add & what to leave out??
or would that would be myself?

also, why cant we make the bible be part of the Veda?

half of the people today believe the whole thing is just a big myth, so i dont see why it cant be included.
then i would qualify for literal Hindusim & not liberal. i could even be a geru (so to speak)

i may have some more questions on my liberal status in hinduism.

 

[Obvious Child]

hi Obvious Child

this kind of reform seems to change the religion quite a bit. a Christian atheist or Hindu atheist does not seem to work, unless viewing it just from culture.

The 'just from culture' may be your Christian background talking. The focus on confessed belief is a very Christian thing.

this is a good point on orthodoxy & orthopraxy. do you feel that to change the orthodoxy & texts too much would in return change some of orthoproxy?
i think it would to a degree & would appreciate your thoughts on that.

i am not in reference to things such as love & respect, but the personal relationship that can be found through both orthopraxy & orthodoxy.

I am not talking about changing texts per se. The Hindu approach seems to me to be into adding rather than taking away. Take the history of Krishna worship

Krishna is first mentioned in Chandogya Upanishad about 600BCE, but not central, or clearly divine
Then the Mahabharata, composed 400BCE-400CE where he is mostly heroic but divine in some sections, particularly the moral and metaphysical teaching of the Bhagavad Gita which is thought to have originated around 200 BCE
Then the Vishnu Purana and Hari Vamsa around 600BCE introduce his life before and outside of the Mahabharata (where he is an outsider who assists in a conflict)
Then the Bhagavata Purana around 800BCE which is perhaps the most complete version of his 'home' life, as mischevious child, sensual youth and wise king.

Most would accept all (Gandhi is an honourable exception, as he rejected the young lover), but the emphasis changes. The bhakti movement uses the Bhagavata Purana but tends to ignore the last book and a half where Krishna''s king, and focuses on the cowgirls and particularly Radha, although the latter is not even mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana. They have their own texts, such as the Gita Govinda by Jayadeva, around 1200CE, but this is additional not instead. Where the Christians start with many beliefs and pare them down, the Hindu tendency is for new beliefs to arise without displacing the old entirely or immediately. The main case of this is the sacrificial practise of the early Vedas (where the reincarnation you see as central has a few vague references at best, and many believe in one life or in heaven), to the reincarnation and its transcendence in the Upanishads, focusing on austerity and wisdom, and then the recent upsurge in bhakti (devotional) traditions.

this is informative, that more Hindus believe in one Lord than the 33 Devas. i would view these Devas more like angels - actually more like attributes of the one true Lord. that is probably not too liberal.

Deva means 'shining one'. They can be seen as aspects of God/Brahman, or as angelic beings. One of the hymns in the Rig Veda says:

They call Him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,
and even the swift winged celestial bird Gautaman.
The learned speak of the One Reality in many ways.
They call Him Agni, Yama and Matarisvan

I think this makes it clear that seeing the Devas as symbolic of something higher is not new: the Rig Veda is the most ancient text in the Vedas (and probably the oldest religious text in the world still around). The level of openness to ideas and the lack of certainity is also around from early on:

At that time there was neither
existence nor non-existence,
neither the worlds nor the sky.
There was nothing that was beyond.
There was no death, nor immortality.
There was no knowledge of the day and night.
That one alone breathed, without air, by itself.
Besides that there was nothing.
Darkness there was enveloped by darkness.
All this was one water, without any distinction.
It was inactive, covered by void.
That one became active by the power of its own thought.
There came upon it at first desire [some translate love],
which was the first seed of the mind.
Men of vision found in their meditative state,
the connection between the Being and the Non-Being.
All gods were subsequent to this creative activity.
Then who knows from where this came into existence!
Where this creation came from ,
whether He supported it or not,
He who is controlling it from the highest of the heavens,
He perhaps knows it or He knows it not ! (Rig Veda X.129)

 

[jiii]

i have another question for you Jiii or the others here.
if hinduism allows for these writings & the Vedas to continue & be extended, who (what organization) chooses what to add & what to leave out??
or would that would be myself?

also, why cant we make the bible be part of the Veda?

Well, the problem in this case is not a confusion of literal Hinduism and liberal Hinduism. Rather, the problem is a confusion between what is essentially "scholarly" Hinduism and Hinduism as it is practiced and lived in normal, everyday life. It is not as though a Hindu hears that a new book has been added to the Vedas and must then read it and adjust his perception and behavior accordingly. Nothing of the kind happens. Most Hindus, in fact, do not own a complete and extensive library of Hindu scriptures. I will venture to guess that most do not own a single Hindu scripture.

This is a difference between Eastern religion and Western religion that many Westerners meet with some difficulty. For a Christian man, most especially a Protestant, "The Book" is the central icon of the Christian life. This is not the case, for the most part, with Hinduism or Buddhism (which Watts called "Hinduism stripped for export" ;-). The Hindus and Buddhists certainly have a vast array of scriptures...the sutras, the vedas, the Dhammapadda, to mention only a few. But traditionally in the East, the written transcription is given much less creedence than the innate "spiritual intuition" of an individual.

It is for this reason that additions or modifications to sets of scriptures that are so vast as that of the Hindus is really of little importance one way or another. I will venture to guess that most Hindus don't even know that "late additions" were made to the scriptures. For the people that are really Hindus, their practice is not conforming to the principles of a their book, but rather practicing "the tradition"..."the Way", as the Taoists would say. To be frank, only so much really needs to be said...after that, take it or leave it...Hinduism and Buddhism are about liberation from distinctions and rigid preconception.

There is no "official" body that accepts or rejects new scriptures. From time to time, people that are granted the title of "Guru" in India or "Master" in China are considered to be slightly more credible for such things. But these people are few and far between. It is perhaps mostly our familiarity with the Catholic bureaucracy that leads us to believe that all religions have some central governing body. But, again, the East never really honored such practices. For example, people in the West usually consider Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, and Lieh-Tzu to be the core books of Taoism. However, one might be surprised to find that there are many, many more Taoist books that are usually just ignored by scholars and mainstream readers because they simply may be too frustrating or confusing a read. Or, perhaps Taoist books like Wen-Tzu just incorporate too many influences from other Chinese schools of thought to be considered pure enough. My point here is that with Eastern religions, almost all spiritual books were crafted at many different times throughtout history by private teachers or practitioners. There is not much of a governing body for these doctrines, especially in the case of Hinduism where there are an innumerable scattering of Hindus into small, independent local "branches", each with its own peculiarities and flavor.

In terms of your question, 'why cant we make the bible a part of the Veda'. Well, we can do that. We could also add the Koran, and the Hagakure, and even a Hardy Boys book. My point is, at the end of the day, it avoids being a hoax only if it doesn't really change much about how Hinduism was practiced already. How is it practiced already? Well, that's what you learn when you dedicate yourself to the Hindu doctrine and find out, not by reading scriptures, but by investigating, exploring, and experiencing your life for whatever it may turn out to be...using the wisdom of the scriptures only where needed as a magnifying glass or telescope, to examine a perspective that may not always be readily available to you.

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste Bandit,

Thanks for the reply.

By tradition, I would think this is referring to sect. Correct? The liberal part would depend on what sect while not diminishing the core? Or, is this a mix & match of the different cores?

Each living tradition or sampradaya can be referred to as a sect. I think there are over 200 such sects (if memory serves me right). In the universalist sects, there is quite a bit of mix and match from traditional Hindu sects, along with ideas from other religions - all of which is sometimes reinterpreted.

I was going to get to this & I am glad you mentioned it. I see a difference because it tends to keep some beliefs from all religions, but it is not possible to keep them all & be in agreement, because there are core writings & teachings.

You are quite correct Bandit. It is actually not possible to keep core beliefs from all religions together and keep them in agreement. But those who do do this usually change the core beliefs of each of the religions they cite, and come up with their own interpretations that differ from traditional ones.

We see this the same. I do not understand why people do this, but they do. Many only pick parts & dump what does not fit their needs & expect other to accept this. I could honestly not do this to any religion, especially the foundations on which they stand.

In my experience, this happens quite a bit in religion these days. Be it Hinduism or Christianity or any religion for that matter. I have no problems with it, but I think universalists should clearly define themselves as such, at least to distinguish from traditionalists.

The Veda is a core to all Hindu beliefs, or so it seems & this cannot be removed.

Yes, from a traditional point of view, this is quite correct. The Veda and Agama are the foundation of Sanatana Dharma. Although we may interpret them differently per the given time and place, they cannot be altogether be rejected in whole or in part. One of the criteria classically for differentiation between Sanatana Dharma and other religions of the Dharma superfamily is the rejection of the Veda.

but is it possible for Hinduism to end all prayers in Jesus Name? If I said a prayer from hindusim, like for peace, I would end it in Jesus Name, because I believe all prayers go through Jesus.

This is purely my personal opinion, and others can/may/will disagree. Belief that Jesus is only Lord and Savior is not Hinduism, or even Hindu universalism. Even if Hindu Universalists may say this is possible, they will also be forced to admit that the same is true for worshippers of Vishnu, worshippers of Shiva, worshippers of Divine Mother, worshippers of Allah, or venerators of Buddha. In other words, if a Hindu universalist argues that you may end your prayers in Jesus’ name, then s/he will have to do the same for all people regardless of who they worship or venerate. Hindu universalists would likely be of the opinion that prayers to Gods of all religions goes to the same God who is seen and called by people of different religions by different names.

From what I understand, reincarnation is indeed a core & foundation of Hinduism. not saying there are some who do not believe in reincarnation, but I think most do. There may be many doctrines concerning this. I don’t know. If all these written doctrines of reincarnation are removed, & we change it to only one life on earth, then we go to be with God. & maybe only sometimes someone may reincarnate only if God says so with no guarantee. Would this change the way people live & think in Hinduism? Would this be acceptable teaching & belief in the liberal view?

The law of Karma is also a fundamental teaching in Hinduism. Is it not? Would it be ok in my liberal view to say it does not really matter what you do & nothing bad ever happens. There is no payment or curse, so you can do as you please. This would kind of mess things up in the Eternal Dharma, I think.

No, these principles would contradict the whole triad doctrine on which the Indic religions are based. The triad doctrine of Dharma, Karma and Rebirth are central to Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Except for Buddhism, the other Dharma religions believe in a reincarnation – that some part of your true self transmigrates from one body to another. Also the idea that God giveth God taketh away technically is contradictory to teachings of the Dharma religions, although many times in the theistic Dharma religions people may say something to the effect. So, I would say the above would not be acceptable from a traditional, liberal or universalistic Hindu perspective, at least as taught by the masters.

How would most Hindus relate & react if it were coming as a regular thought from my liberal view? Would they be glad?

These sorts of questions are tough to answer, but the attitude would likely depend on the individual.

Traditionally, I hear it is not acceptable. Is this a more recent liberal teaching?

In many traditional texts, cows are said to be holy and should not be killed. Many believe this came about because of the value of the cow and bull to the ancient agrarian society. Many times, the wealth of ancient kings was based not only on gold and silver, but the number of cattle they owned. Also, cows and bulls are associated with many legends in the Puranas. Apart from that, the cow came to be a symbol of the mother because once a child is weaned off the mother’s milk, the cow was seen as the next mother. So, cow killing was seen as equal to matricide. So, from a traditional stance, cow killing or eating was considered unacceptable. The price people would pay for openly consuming beef was to be shunned by society. However, either from a traditional or liberal sense, the definition of Hindu or Hinduism is independent of beef eating.

I realize the puranas are more cosmo histories & legends of gods & heroes but they are still related in a sense to Sanatana for those who believe them. Correct?

The puranas are still an important part of Sanatana Dharma, this is quite true. For Hindus, who believe and practice their religion, the legends of Rama and Krishna, in particular, are as true and real as the stories of Jesus for believing Christians. For a long time, the Vedas were unavailable to the common people, and theology and philosophy was related through the Puranas.

if I keep telling those who believe it is true, that the puranas & Sanatana Darma are not true & mostly myth, would this not begin to burden those who believe it is true? If someone truly believes, then what purpose is there to tell them it is not true, except to make them believe it is not true? Do you see what I mean?

Yes I do see what you mean. The Puranas contain a variety of information from histories, genealogies, folk stories, cosmology, and mythology. There is much to be learned from this class of literature. As far as the so-called myths are concerned, there is sort of a middle ground between believing that these are literally true, or completely rejecting them as false. There is a large school of thought that professes that the Puranic myths were written in allegorical format to present complex theology and philosophy to the common people. So, if someone says that the Puranic myths are not literally true, they may mean that there is more to the stories than meets common understanding, and that we have to analyze the legends to extract the true meaning.

by inserting other beliefs from other religions or my own philosospy which differs greatly from the traditional views, would this be acceptable in Hinduism?

The answer is obviously no, be it for Hinduism or any other religion. Once you introduce and combine beliefs from various religions and use your own unique philosophy to package it all together, you’ve introduced your own religion. Note that Hindu universalists who use the term “Hindu” are very careful to utilize Hindu philosophy and theology to speak of the principles of other religions that they accept, and readily reject the principles that are against Hindu core beliefs.

Here you are saying there are many different cores in Hinduism, but within that particular tradition or denomination, the core of the tradition/denomination would still remain. In christianity the core remains the same, but there are many denominations.

All branches/sects of Hinduism have several core principles in common. One example is the belief in an all-pervasive Divine. However, certain denominations may have additional core beliefs. For example, Vaishnavism believes in the incarnation doctrine – that God incarnates into a personal form for the good of the world. This is a core Vaishnavite belief across all its sects. Shaivism does not accept the incarnation doctrine, and says that an all-pervasive God does not need to incarnate at all. Regardless, both believe in an all-pervasive Divinity.

are you saying one can mix & match the core beliefs?

From a traditional/orthodox perspective absolutely not. From a universalist perspective, this can and has been done.

Would it be ok for me to suggest that Krishna is not a real Lord & not a literal Savior? Krishna is just a regular man with some good teaching but not all. Would this become burdensome & contrary to those who believe Krishna is Lord? or is it acceptable?

From a Vaishnavite perspective, absolutely not ! To say so would be just as burdensome as to tell a believing Christian that Jesus is not the real Lord and Savior.

However, from non-Vaishnavite perspectives any interpretation of who Krishna can be made. And, Vaishnavites can and do readily reject any such interpretation.

If I am correct, in Hinduism, it is an expanding religion. New writings are accepted. Would it be contrary to try & stop or change this expansion & say no more writings in my liberal view? Or is it ok to do that?

Hinduism has always been an open religious system. Anyone can technically found their own sect or write their own scripture. However, acceptance of your beliefs by the people and standing up to the critics from others sects is the real challenge. Since Hinduism is not organized as a church or an institution, there is no central authority to enforce or reject any given belief or dogma. Traditionally, any principle that conforms with the Veda was accepted. All writing that is post-Veda and post-Agama is considered secondary in Sanatana Dharma. To stop such expansion of secondary literature, new thought and interpretations would be contrary to Hindu tradition.

I think the reason it varies so much is due to the many writings & different gods & goddesses with many descriptive arms & hands.

Hinduism has never been a religion with a scripture, which began at a point in time, or focuses on the teachings of a person. This is what makes it unique. However, all Hindus agree on certain core principles, which is what unifies them. When we don’t have a singular point of reference, multiple interpretations are a result (this even happens when there is a singular point or person). Most Hindus do not see this as a shortcoming at all, but as their greatest asset.

If I were to diminish the Hindu masters by making them not real masters & make them of less value to those who follow the masters & remove many of their teachings, would this become tiring for those who follow a particular master? For example to disagree with a master would imply that I am not truly following that master all the way, only using him for the teachings that I like, but removing much of his authority as a master that has been gained & accepted with others. Would this liberal view & alterations make those people weary & somewhat confused, who follow the masters & his teaching?

Disagreeing with a certain master and taking only the views that are likeable to you is not a teaching of any liberal or universalist branch of Hinduism as far as I know.

I have one more question for you. Lets say, the lineage of a certain tribe who pass down an heirloom from generation to generation for thousands of years. This heirloom also comes with an inheritance. If these people are fiction, would the heirloom & inheritance also become fiction?

What are your views on this?

OM Shanti,
A.