Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Hinduism a Religion? - by Maria Wirth
0 views
Skip to first unread message
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jul 9, 2013, 1:43:55 PM7/9/13
to
Is Hinduism a Religion?
By Maria Wirth
July 8, 2013
Occasionally I noticed that in western publications
Hinduism was missing when religions were listed. Buddhism
was there, without fail, but its mother so to speak was
ignored. What could be the reason? About one billion
human beings are Hindus. Hinduism is alive and vibrant.
There is hardly another people who are as ‘religious’ and
have so much faith in the Divine. Yet what they revere
and hold dear is often considered ‘only’ a way of life.
However, the discussion is still on. Some argue,
“Dharma”, as Hindus (and Buddhists) refer to their
‘religion’ cannot be translated as religion. It differs
from western religions in many aspects; therefore
Hinduism is not a religion. Others feel that since
‘religions’ are legally and socially greatly privileged
in today’s world, it would be a big blunder to leave this
field to Christianity and Islam who would triumphantly
wade into that vacuum. They might claim (and are experts
in unsubstantiated claims) that everyone has a right to
religion: therefore, since Hindus don’t have a religion,
they need to be blessed with the ‘true’ religion.
To get any further, let’s look at the definition of
religion. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut
definition. There is however an implicit understanding
that religion is about the mysterious origin of our
universe, about its creator, about God and about moral
guidelines for our lives. The word ‘religion’ comes from
re-ligare (Latin) which means to bind back. One could
assume that it means to bind the human being back to his
creator or God.
In that case, Hindu Dharma cannot be excluded; it is
probably the original, most ancient religion. Many
thousands of years ago, the Indian rishis enquired into
the truth of this visible world. They postulated criteria
for ‘truth’ and came to the conclusion that one
invisible, conscious essence is the only true ‘thing’
permeating everything in this apparent universe and
beyond. They called it Brahman (from big, expanding) or
simply Tat (that) and postulated that it was eternal,
infinite, unchanging, true, aware, blissful and the
invisible basis of everything including our own person.
So basically, we are that Brahman. Our essence is That.
Only, we are born blind to this truth and the purpose of
life is to realize it. Further, ancient Indian scriptures
give many methods for achieving this Self- or God-
realization.
Now, when western religions appeared on the scene, they
limited this vast, all-pervading Brahman to a “god” who
is personal, male, separate from his creation and with
strong likes and dislikes. For example, this god, so is
claimed, greatly dislikes any human being who does not
acknowledge him as the only true god. In fact he even has
decreed that any such human being will burn eternally in
hell, unless he officially (through a small ritual) joins
the ‘true religion’.
Now, how do these religions know what God is and what he
wants? Because God/ Allah has revealed ‘the truth’ to two
persons - to Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago and Prophet
Mohammed some 1400 years ago, and these revelations have
been handed down in two books, the Bible and the Quran.
And what is the proof that all this is true? There is no
proof, except for the words of those two persons who are,
however, not ordinary persons: Jesus Christi is the only
son of God and Prophet Mohammed Allah’s final prophet.
That is what Christianity and Islam claim as truth and
they repeat this claim again and again so that it looks
as if proven and nobody dares to question it.
We can see by now that there are indeed significant
differences between the Abrahamic religions on one side,
and Hinduism on the other. The Abrahamic religions come
as a ‘belief system’, which means that blind belief is
required in dogmas, which have no chance to be verified.
Hindu Dharma on the other hand is based on a genuine
enquiry into truth, which means that there is no need to
accept any claim that does not make sense.
Now, religion is also defined as ‘belief system’. In that
case, the Abrahamic religions easily qualify. However,
there is a contradiction. On one hand, religions claim to
tell us about the truth, and on the other hand we have
two different, unverifiable ‘belief systems’ about this
truth from Christianity and Islam. They can’t be both
true and there is a chance that none of them is true,
because they contradict human intelligence. It certainly
does not make sense that the absolute, eternal truth is a
story about a God who is heavily biased towards one group
(which one?) of humanity.
So here again comes in Hindu Dharma. It is the best
possible ‘belief system’ that is not based on dogmas but
based on knowledge and direct experience. It is open to
scientific validation. It is possible to know that this
manifold manifestation is permeated by one energy or
awareness. So the Hindu claim that all including the
human being is divine, because all is ultimately Brahman
is in all likelihood true. “Tat tvam asi” (That art thou)
is fiercely rejected as heresy by the Abrahamic
religions. Mystics of Christianity and Islam who
experienced this oneness and dared to proclaim it, were
excommunicated or even killed.
So does it follow that these religions even resist the
truth? Could re-ligare “bind back” be better interpreted
as “holding the individual back from realizing his
oneness with the Absolute”? This conclusion may actually
not be off the mark, especially if one sees how much
effort goes into denigrating Hinduism. Every school kid
in the world is taught that Hinduism is weird. Not only
school kids, at the university level, there is clearly an
attempt by western academics (and that includes western
oriented Indians) to badly despise Hinduism. “Invading
the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America”
gives ample proof how outrageously Hinduism is portrayed
and how benignly the ‘revealed’ religions.
Are people in the West so intellectually deficient to
believe that an irrational dogma, like “everyone has to
join the Church to be saved” has anything to do with
truth? Or do they denigrate Hinduism as they know that it
has the capacity to trump the western belief systems and
undermine their power if only there were a genuine debate
on what we can know about the truth?
However, running down Hinduism was for too long too crude
and it has now backfired. Hindus realize that their
tradition cannot possibly be as bad as it is made out to
be. They reacted first in the US and got the syllabus in
US schools and colleges changed. Slowly in India, too,
the awareness that Hindu Dharma actually stands tall
among religions is growing.
If religions are about the truth, Hindu Dharma (inc.
Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) is the best. But if religions
are meant to prevent the individual from realizing the
truth, then Hindu Dharma is not a religion.
But since Christianity and Islam claim to reveal the
truth and will not acknowledge that they hinder their
flock from knowing the real truth, Hindu Dharma needs to
take its rightful place at the top of the pile. So far,
the two big ‘belief systems’ have dominated the scene and
each has declared itself as the ‘only true religion’,
even called itself ‘universal’ for the sole reason that
both storm all over the world trying to impose their
dogmas. Hindu Dharma is actually ‘universal’ as everyone
and all are included in Brahman.
Many in the west feel oppressed by mandatory belief in
dogmas, and leave the Church. They opt for atheism as for
them anything metaphysical is intrinsically connected
with the Church. Some, mostly educated people, discover
Buddhism. Hinduism is not an option for most as it is
projected to be weird. Only few discover its value and
stand by it, like Julia Roberts did.
If Hindus would be forthright about the profound insights
of their rishis, Hindu Dharma would surely spread across
the world, as it did in ancient times throughout Asia. Of
course Hindus would need to know at least the basics of
their dharma to be able to see that Hindu Dharma is
indeed the best of faiths.
As an outsider, I would like to give Hindu Dharma the
‘religion’ tag only to protect it against denigration.
For Hindus, the definition is too narrow, and I am aware
of it.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=2862
More at:
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/07/is-hinduism-religion-maria-wirth.html
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
By Maria Wirth
July 8, 2013
Occasionally I noticed that in western publications
Hinduism was missing when religions were listed. Buddhism
was there, without fail, but its mother so to speak was
ignored. What could be the reason? About one billion
human beings are Hindus. Hinduism is alive and vibrant.
There is hardly another people who are as ‘religious’ and
have so much faith in the Divine. Yet what they revere
and hold dear is often considered ‘only’ a way of life.
However, the discussion is still on. Some argue,
“Dharma”, as Hindus (and Buddhists) refer to their
‘religion’ cannot be translated as religion. It differs
from western religions in many aspects; therefore
Hinduism is not a religion. Others feel that since
‘religions’ are legally and socially greatly privileged
in today’s world, it would be a big blunder to leave this
field to Christianity and Islam who would triumphantly
wade into that vacuum. They might claim (and are experts
in unsubstantiated claims) that everyone has a right to
religion: therefore, since Hindus don’t have a religion,
they need to be blessed with the ‘true’ religion.
To get any further, let’s look at the definition of
religion. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut
definition. There is however an implicit understanding
that religion is about the mysterious origin of our
universe, about its creator, about God and about moral
guidelines for our lives. The word ‘religion’ comes from
re-ligare (Latin) which means to bind back. One could
assume that it means to bind the human being back to his
creator or God.
In that case, Hindu Dharma cannot be excluded; it is
probably the original, most ancient religion. Many
thousands of years ago, the Indian rishis enquired into
the truth of this visible world. They postulated criteria
for ‘truth’ and came to the conclusion that one
invisible, conscious essence is the only true ‘thing’
permeating everything in this apparent universe and
beyond. They called it Brahman (from big, expanding) or
simply Tat (that) and postulated that it was eternal,
infinite, unchanging, true, aware, blissful and the
invisible basis of everything including our own person.
So basically, we are that Brahman. Our essence is That.
Only, we are born blind to this truth and the purpose of
life is to realize it. Further, ancient Indian scriptures
give many methods for achieving this Self- or God-
realization.
Now, when western religions appeared on the scene, they
limited this vast, all-pervading Brahman to a “god” who
is personal, male, separate from his creation and with
strong likes and dislikes. For example, this god, so is
claimed, greatly dislikes any human being who does not
acknowledge him as the only true god. In fact he even has
decreed that any such human being will burn eternally in
hell, unless he officially (through a small ritual) joins
the ‘true religion’.
Now, how do these religions know what God is and what he
wants? Because God/ Allah has revealed ‘the truth’ to two
persons - to Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago and Prophet
Mohammed some 1400 years ago, and these revelations have
been handed down in two books, the Bible and the Quran.
And what is the proof that all this is true? There is no
proof, except for the words of those two persons who are,
however, not ordinary persons: Jesus Christi is the only
son of God and Prophet Mohammed Allah’s final prophet.
That is what Christianity and Islam claim as truth and
they repeat this claim again and again so that it looks
as if proven and nobody dares to question it.
We can see by now that there are indeed significant
differences between the Abrahamic religions on one side,
and Hinduism on the other. The Abrahamic religions come
as a ‘belief system’, which means that blind belief is
required in dogmas, which have no chance to be verified.
Hindu Dharma on the other hand is based on a genuine
enquiry into truth, which means that there is no need to
accept any claim that does not make sense.
Now, religion is also defined as ‘belief system’. In that
case, the Abrahamic religions easily qualify. However,
there is a contradiction. On one hand, religions claim to
tell us about the truth, and on the other hand we have
two different, unverifiable ‘belief systems’ about this
truth from Christianity and Islam. They can’t be both
true and there is a chance that none of them is true,
because they contradict human intelligence. It certainly
does not make sense that the absolute, eternal truth is a
story about a God who is heavily biased towards one group
(which one?) of humanity.
So here again comes in Hindu Dharma. It is the best
possible ‘belief system’ that is not based on dogmas but
based on knowledge and direct experience. It is open to
scientific validation. It is possible to know that this
manifold manifestation is permeated by one energy or
awareness. So the Hindu claim that all including the
human being is divine, because all is ultimately Brahman
is in all likelihood true. “Tat tvam asi” (That art thou)
is fiercely rejected as heresy by the Abrahamic
religions. Mystics of Christianity and Islam who
experienced this oneness and dared to proclaim it, were
excommunicated or even killed.
So does it follow that these religions even resist the
truth? Could re-ligare “bind back” be better interpreted
as “holding the individual back from realizing his
oneness with the Absolute”? This conclusion may actually
not be off the mark, especially if one sees how much
effort goes into denigrating Hinduism. Every school kid
in the world is taught that Hinduism is weird. Not only
school kids, at the university level, there is clearly an
attempt by western academics (and that includes western
oriented Indians) to badly despise Hinduism. “Invading
the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America”
gives ample proof how outrageously Hinduism is portrayed
and how benignly the ‘revealed’ religions.
Are people in the West so intellectually deficient to
believe that an irrational dogma, like “everyone has to
join the Church to be saved” has anything to do with
truth? Or do they denigrate Hinduism as they know that it
has the capacity to trump the western belief systems and
undermine their power if only there were a genuine debate
on what we can know about the truth?
However, running down Hinduism was for too long too crude
and it has now backfired. Hindus realize that their
tradition cannot possibly be as bad as it is made out to
be. They reacted first in the US and got the syllabus in
US schools and colleges changed. Slowly in India, too,
the awareness that Hindu Dharma actually stands tall
among religions is growing.
If religions are about the truth, Hindu Dharma (inc.
Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) is the best. But if religions
are meant to prevent the individual from realizing the
truth, then Hindu Dharma is not a religion.
But since Christianity and Islam claim to reveal the
truth and will not acknowledge that they hinder their
flock from knowing the real truth, Hindu Dharma needs to
take its rightful place at the top of the pile. So far,
the two big ‘belief systems’ have dominated the scene and
each has declared itself as the ‘only true religion’,
even called itself ‘universal’ for the sole reason that
both storm all over the world trying to impose their
dogmas. Hindu Dharma is actually ‘universal’ as everyone
and all are included in Brahman.
Many in the west feel oppressed by mandatory belief in
dogmas, and leave the Church. They opt for atheism as for
them anything metaphysical is intrinsically connected
with the Church. Some, mostly educated people, discover
Buddhism. Hinduism is not an option for most as it is
projected to be weird. Only few discover its value and
stand by it, like Julia Roberts did.
If Hindus would be forthright about the profound insights
of their rishis, Hindu Dharma would surely spread across
the world, as it did in ancient times throughout Asia. Of
course Hindus would need to know at least the basics of
their dharma to be able to see that Hindu Dharma is
indeed the best of faiths.
As an outsider, I would like to give Hindu Dharma the
‘religion’ tag only to protect it against denigration.
For Hindus, the definition is too narrow, and I am aware
of it.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=2862
More at:
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/07/is-hinduism-religion-maria-wirth.html
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
probguy
Jul 9, 2013, 3:21:35 PM7/9/13
to
"In that case, Hindu Dharma cannot be excluded; it is
probably the original, most ancient religion. Many"
religions of s. aisa are far far older.
Hinduism is an umbrella term for a historical mixture of religious
practices. Those associated somehow with vedic literature are some 3 k
years old. But most of what is called hinduism is far younger. It is
several traditions which are a mixture of local practices and those imposed
locally as the tides of history swept over s. asia.
Some have no divine, some one god, some a few gods, and yet others many
gods. Practices and doctrine varies widely as reflects the local mix and
history.
It is more accurate to say there are many religions of s. asia which are
called collectively hindu, a term most likely what some external source
applied to the mix.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jul 9, 2013, 3:31:27 PM7/9/13
to
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Forwarded post:
Good exposition.
Being a marketer, I often relate this easy analogy, that
would be between generic vs branded water.
Hinduism is just generic, plain, natural water. so its
universal. All types of water come under this. No one
really centrally controls it, which is one reason for it
being under siege all the time.
Islam and Christianity are like Aquafina and Evian, a
subscription business, which needs to add followers
(customers) just as any business has to grow to survive.
The very survival of the brands depend on their
uniqueness (packaging, value prop, target market,
segmentation and what not). Its also not practical to
expect one brand to 'mutually respect'* the other brands.
(*to quote Rajiv malhotra)
As with a brand, its messaging is centrally controlled
(one book, one historical event, strictly believed), and
protected fiercely, otherwise it will lose mindspace to
its competitors (either other brands or the whole product
segment could be wiped out - so Islam can lose out to
christianity or both can be lost to atheism or Hinduism.
Real atheism is a subset of hinduism anyway). The whole
segment can go away as in Religion itself can go back to
its real definition of 'going back to your source' which
would essentially wipe out both islam and christianity as
they 'hold back' for the sake of their subscription
business.
The only way the brands can sell and remain relevant is
by saying that the ordinary water is dirty or unclean or
how its better than ordinary water AND other brands. Do
you think Evian will have anything nice to say about
Aquafina or ordinary water?
Posted by Shyam
End of forwarded post.
Good exposition.
Being a marketer, I often relate this easy analogy, that
would be between generic vs branded water.
Hinduism is just generic, plain, natural water. so its
universal. All types of water come under this. No one
really centrally controls it, which is one reason for it
being under siege all the time.
Islam and Christianity are like Aquafina and Evian, a
subscription business, which needs to add followers
(customers) just as any business has to grow to survive.
The very survival of the brands depend on their
uniqueness (packaging, value prop, target market,
segmentation and what not). Its also not practical to
expect one brand to 'mutually respect'* the other brands.
(*to quote Rajiv malhotra)
As with a brand, its messaging is centrally controlled
(one book, one historical event, strictly believed), and
protected fiercely, otherwise it will lose mindspace to
its competitors (either other brands or the whole product
segment could be wiped out - so Islam can lose out to
christianity or both can be lost to atheism or Hinduism.
Real atheism is a subset of hinduism anyway). The whole
segment can go away as in Religion itself can go back to
its real definition of 'going back to your source' which
would essentially wipe out both islam and christianity as
they 'hold back' for the sake of their subscription
business.
The only way the brands can sell and remain relevant is
by saying that the ordinary water is dirty or unclean or
how its better than ordinary water AND other brands. Do
you think Evian will have anything nice to say about
Aquafina or ordinary water?
Posted by Shyam
End of forwarded post.
Steve Hayes
Jul 10, 2013, 2:17:22 AM7/10/13
to
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:43:55 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>Is Hinduism a Religion?
>
>By
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>Is Hinduism a Religion?
>
>By
>aria Wirth
>July 8, 2013
>
>Occasionally I noticed that in western publications
>Hinduism was missing when religions were listed. Buddhism
>was there, without fail, but its mother so to speak was
>ignored. What could be the reason? About one billion
>human beings are Hindus. Hinduism is alive and vibrant.
>There is hardly another people who are as ?eligious?and
>July 8, 2013
>
>Occasionally I noticed that in western publications
>Hinduism was missing when religions were listed. Buddhism
>was there, without fail, but its mother so to speak was
>ignored. What could be the reason? About one billion
>human beings are Hindus. Hinduism is alive and vibrant.
>have so much faith in the Divine. Yet what they revere
>and hold dear is often considered ?nly?a way of life.
Why did you say ?nly??
A lot depends on what you mean by "religion" -- itself a Western concept, and
many adherents of what are commonly called religions in the West are fond of
saying that "XXX is not a religion, it's a way of life."
So why ?nly??
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
Jul 10, 2013, 2:36:57 AM7/10/13
to
On 09 Jul 2013 19:21:35 GMT, Prob guy wrote:
>It is more accurate to say there are many religions of s. asia which are
>called collectively hindu, a term most likely what some external source
>applied to the mix.
Right on.
>It is more accurate to say there are many religions of s. asia which are
>called collectively hindu, a term most likely what some external source
>applied to the mix.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jul 10, 2013, 2:39:47 AM7/10/13
to
In article
<d6279d1e-3a64-4f28...@googlegroups.com>,
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> Dhanyavaad for your post and for your service to Sanaatan Dharm !
You're welcome. And dhanyavaad for your sevaa to Sanaatan Dharm.
Sanaatan Dharm Kee Jai Ho!
<d6279d1e-3a64-4f28...@googlegroups.com>,
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
You're welcome. And dhanyavaad for your sevaa to Sanaatan Dharm.
Sanaatan Dharm Kee Jai Ho!
0 new messages