Is Hinduism the eldest of Islam and Christianity and budism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter excaliber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I attempted to put forth on another thread here,* there are three basic stances in the world relative to God, religion and redemption. These are “God yes,” “God no,” and “God maybe.”

Of the “God yes” position there are three varieties. This posting won’t go into idolatry, cargo cults, etc. despite the latter being a good example of how we draw conclusions from experiences we don’t understand. Chief in the “yes” catagory in our experience is the chiristianist position that there was a remote-in-time appearance of a once-only Son of God who accomplished redemption for all humans by virtue of His Divine Nature. This is the contention of those who assert that the concurrent human and Divine natures of Jesus constitute a state called the hypostatic union, again, that being attributable only to Jesus. There seems to be growing scholarly contention with that presentation.

The other “God yes” position stems from the standpoint that God is ALL. As far as I can tell, it presents, taken as a whole, that the point of all of the mystery religions and the Self realization systems is that the hypostatic union and beatific vision are one and the same, and are (is) the goal of all seeking, but to be accomplished here on Earth before death. It relagates ultimate responsibility to each one to discover their essential and pre-existing at-One-ment with God. It is easily the least understood and most misconstrued by the general public of all systems, as far as I can tell.

It is a very tricky thing to get your mind around correctly, primarily because it is not meant to appeal to your standard everyday intellect. It is usually taught by association, encounter, and example, not solely by preaching and study. It is distinctly not for everyone, which is why it has many discouraging names. On the other hand, it has been called the Perennial Philosophy as a recognition that whether in public or in secret, it has sprung up since the dawn of Man, irrespective of time, place, culture, gender, whatever. Also remember that as one man said in regards to studying this Way: “The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live.” No truer words were spoken regarding what can happen if you question your cradle belief system.

In that spirit, the following might be useful:

*The New Man *by Maurice Nicol, being an explication of the parables attributed to Jesus in light of the teaching language used at His time (Mark 4:33-34)

A book on religious sanity by Gina Cerminara with the unfortunate and misleading title Insights for the Age of Aquarius. It is perhaps the best stated argument for religious sanity in existance, based on the premise that how we aquire and practice religion is a proper field of investigation.

*The Pagan Christ *and *Water into Wine *by Tom Harpur which give chapter, verse, and chronicle of how our understanding of the Gosples can be renewed with a deeper understanding of the significance of their origins.

Basic Self Knowledge by Harry Benjamin
the writings of Franklin Merrel-Wolff
the writings of Nisargadatta
the writings of Byron Katie, esp. “A Thousand Names for Joy”
the writings of Shankara
the writings of Krishnamurti
the writings of Ramana Maharshi
the writings of Merle Antoinette Roberson
the writings of Kenneth G. Mills

One of my perennial favorites is “The Phenomenon of Man” by Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, if only because when I was in Catholic high school its title gave me the courage to step back out of my self and observe my beliefs with dispassion. It, along with two other factors in high school, resulted in the most passionate and rewarding journey of my life.

*post #7, Books That Explore Definitions of Self; Appologetics & Philosophy: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=295918
 
Detales said:
…
In that spirit, the following might be useful:
…
Basic Self Knowledge by Harry Benjamin
the writings of Franklin Merrel-Wolff
the writings of Nisargadatta
the writings of Byron Katie, esp. “A Thousand Names for Joy”
the writings of Shankara
the writings of Krishnamurti
the writings of Ramana Maharshi
the writings of Merle Antoinette Roberson
the writings of Kenneth G. Mills

One of my perennial favorites is “The Phenomenon of Man” by Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, if only because when I was in Catholic high school its title gave me the courage to step back out of my self and observe my beliefs with dispassion. It, along with two other factors in high school, resulted in the most passionate and rewarding journey of my life.

*post #7, Books That Explore Definitions of Self; Appologetics & Philosophy: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=295918
Click to expand...
I second you on the writings of Nisargadatta, Shankara, and Ramana Maharshi.
Since you are quite attracted to Teilhard De Chardin, you may also find the works of Aurobindo Ghose interesting.
 
I know this aboout Hinduism.
It has no central authority’
Each person has to make his own rules,depending on a text that he may choose to interpret his own way or through a swamy or guru he has attached himself to.
There is no golden rule. There is no defnitive right or wrong.
There is no sin as is understood in the christian world. There is no concept of personal guilt.
The religion is more a culture and a way of life. It is easy to follow, makes no demands, sets no standards, it is completely up to you as to whether you would like to choose certain good qualities for your self and adhere to them, or whether you don’t. Either way you are a hindu.
You can live your whole life by making pilgrimages and visiting temples and be a lazy shiftless person but still be called a good hindu.
 
undeserving said:
I know this aboout Hinduism.
It has no central authority’
Each person has to make his own rules,depending on a text that he may choose to interpret his own way or through a swamy or guru he has attached himself to.
There is no golden rule. There is no defnitive right or wrong.
There is no sin as is understood in the christian world. There is no concept of personal guilt.
The religion is more a culture and a way of life. It is easy to follow, makes no demands, sets no standards, it is completely up to you as to whether you would like to choose certain good qualities for your self and adhere to them, or whether you don’t. Either way you are a hindu.
You can live your whole life by making pilgrimages and visiting temples and be a lazy shiftless person but still be called a good hindu.
Click to expand...
The standards depend on the goal.

Just like where in Catholicism, if all you want is membership, all you need do is to adhere to a set of beliefs and follow some basic rules about Church (temple) attendance and basic rules about being a decent human being.

If you want the spiritual attainments of someone like Padre Pio, mere memorizing and agreeing to a set of beliefs and following a set of behavioral rules guarantees you absolutely nothing! The same is true in Hinduism.

For any religion, regardless of its external form, if you want “God-Realistion” (or whatever the equivalent concept might be) the demands and standards required are far beyond anything you can imagine, if you haven’t made the personal commitment to achieving that goal, and haven’t connected with a spiritual director who themselves have achieved that goal.

Concepts of rules, belief structure, etc. don’t even begin to describe these demands and standards.

Regardless of each specific religion’s structure, rules, beliefs, behavioral standards, etc., anything less than the pursuit of such a goal is nothing more than living a “culture and way of life”.
 
notself said:
Interesting. I just looked it up and it appears that the Jains predate Buddhism by about 400 years at least.

Thanks for the correction. 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually, I should be more precise. Jainism predates the birth of Siddhartha Gautama. Whether it predates Buddhism is a whole 'nother issue.👍
 
SedesDomi said:
Actually, I should be more precise. Jainism predates the birth of Siddhartha Gautama. Whether it predates Buddhism is a whole 'nother issue.👍
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean, but if you mean that Jainism does not predate the Buddha prior to Gotama, then you are of course correct. It’s being rather technical, though. 😃

For readers:

Siddhattha Gotama predicted that his teachings will be distorted, watered down and then be completely forgotten. All traces of Buddhism will disappear.

A new person will discover the Dhamma, the teachings, for himself and on his own and will again teach the Dhamma. Then over time the teachings will be distorted, watered down and be completely forgotten. The cycle will repeat again and again.
 
undeserving said:
I know this aboout Hinduism.
It has no central authority’
Each person has to make his own rules,depending on a text that he may choose to interpret his own way or through a swamy or guru he has attached himself to.
There is no golden rule. There is no defnitive right or wrong.
There is no sin as is understood in the christian world. There is no concept of personal guilt.
The religion is more a culture and a way of life. It is easy to follow, makes no demands, sets no standards, it is completely up to you as to whether you would like to choose certain good qualities for your self and adhere to them, or whether you don’t. Either way you are a hindu.
You can live your whole life by making pilgrimages and visiting temples and be a lazy shiftless person but still be called a good hindu.
Click to expand...
Sounds an awful lot like New Age Movement and neo-paganism! (except the pilgrimages and temples)
 
undeserving said:
You can live your whole life by making pilgrimages and visiting temples and be a lazy shiftless person but still be called a good hindu.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if a Hindu like Gandhi, or Ramakrishna, would call a “lazy, shiftless person” a good Hindu.

Being Hindu (which literally means “one born in the land of the Indus River”) is one thing.

Being a Hindu who actually practices Dharma (“The Right, the Good, and the True”) is another thing entirely.
 
Actually, I had no clue of the Golden Rule in either of its two forms, other than in a way of their being admonitions, until I studied a bit about Middle Eastern and Eastern traditions. When I did, their actual foundation as I newly understood it not only revitalized The Rule for me, but made the words of Jesus in the Bible jump out at me with new meaning as well. You might say that I re-discovered Christianism by the grace of the proponents of what has been called the Perennial Philosophy. That same realization put the foundation of morality for me on a footing not approached by my undersanding of the catechism.

But it took years of work before that “OH MY GOD” moment actually happened for me. And then it unfolded in an astonishing, world transforming, re-vitaliazing way. An important factor in this is that before I embarked on such a study, I had a knowledge of Catholic theology sufficient to win a very nice state-wide trophy. I also had occasionally stumped a number of priests who were ignorant of the points I was inquiring about. All that is to say that I did not take my pursuit lightly on any count. I was actually forced into it by my own faith.

I also agree with the statement on here about the nature of oral vs. textual traditions, i.e. that oral traditions are publicly checked for identity whereas textual lineage is easily distorted. We now know from scholarship many things that are of great importance concerning the history of Biblical texts. We also know about translation that “Idem non idem.” (The same thing-in another language-is not the same thing.) ** And despite the wonderful, miraculous things that can be attributed to our Church, we also know some unfortunate matters concerning its history and formation. This is NOT to speak against it, it is to point out that no matter what church one belongs to, some people of any faith have done some questionable things.

There is also something to be said about the statement made on here about the Dharma being repeatedly discovered and diluted. Even my own Mentor in philosophy was emphatic about his assertion that *no one *was to be considered as speaking for him after his passing. Also, if we remember in Eastern Teaching that there is a sense of the word “I” that refers strictly to Conscious Awareness, the statement “I shall come again” can posssibly take on new meaning, as can other of His statements. Even Robert Heinlein told us, accurately, that “in English, only the first person singular of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” English is a language given to dualism, and as with other Indo-European languages cannot accuratley cope with some concepts except with great difficulty.

Again, I refer folks in this regard to Maurice Nicol’s explication of the parables of Jesus in terms of the teaching language used at that time. I repeat again, that this line of study is not child’s play, as it can result in profound changes in one’s world as they now understand it. The signature on one of the posts here quotes a Sheik as saying “Until you become an unbeliever in your own self, you cannot become a believer in God.” That constitutes an accurate and dire warning to proceed at your own risk. I might phrase it in English, though, as “Until you thoroughly discover that your aquired personalality filters (beliefs) distort your perception of Reality, you will not know the Self or God.” This is why I refer folks to that unfortunatley titled book on religious sanity by Gina Cerminara.

I would also* guess *that that linguistic and proceedural difference is why Jesus remonstrated against being associated with His family members, and made pointed comments about His desciples lack of faith. That is as far as I will take this here, though there are far more profound implications in this matter, all of them, in my experience, a revitalization of the teachings I have known since childhood.

** That reminds me of the delightful story about the woman who refused to learn a foreign language when the occasion merited it. When asked, her reason was “God writ the Bible in English, so it’s all I need and good enough for me!”.
 
Detales said:
…
But it took years of work before that “OH MY GOD” moment actually happened for me. And then it unfolded in an astonishing, world transforming, re-vitaliazing way. An important factor in this is that before I embarked on such a study, I had a knowledge of Catholic theology sufficient to win a very nice state-wide trophy. I also had occasionally stumped a number of priests who were ignorant of the points I was inquiring about. All that is to say that I did not take my pursuit lightly on any count. I was actually forced into it by my own faith.
…
I repeat again, that this line of study is not child’s play, as it can result in profound changes in one’s world as they now understand it. The signature on one of the posts here quotes a Sheik as saying “Until you become an unbeliever in your own self, you cannot become a believer in God.” That constitutes an accurate and dire warning to proceed at your own risk. I might phrase it in English, though, as “Until you thoroughly discover that your aquired personalality filters (beliefs) distort your perception of Reality, you will not know the Self or God.”
…
That is as far as I will take this here, though there are far more profound implications in this matter, all of them, in my experience, a revitalization of the teachings I have known since childhood.
…
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

(Please do not limit yourself in your future postings as to the level of “profound implications” you address - where appropriate of course).
 
morning_star777 said:
Dear R_not if you want to know details about Hinduism then see this article of wikipedia.God bless you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism and

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vedic_religion
Click to expand...
Those articles are nice, and scholarly informative, but they don’t get to the Heart of Hinduism. Hinduism would be nothing without those who claim to have realized the Truth to which the Hindu scriptures merely (but helpfully) point. One such realizer, who is accepted as “enlightened” by many others both today and in his lifetime, is Ramana Maharshi.
 
SedesDomi said:
Those articles are nice, and scholarly informative, but they don’t get to the Heart of Hinduism. Hinduism would be nothing without those who claim to have realized the Truth to which the Hindu scriptures merely (but helpfully) point. One such realizer, who is accepted as “enlightened” by many others both today and in his lifetime, is Ramana Maharshi.
Click to expand...
Definitely a maha rishi (great seer or saint).
 
We’re off topic here, but I won’t resist adding that Ramana Maharshi is one of my favorites, somone whom I wish I had met after I knew my Mentor, who introduced me to his works. My Mentor held Ramana in the highest light and quoted him often, and was mistaken for one of his direct students, though he was not. I have found that all such “realized ones” are remarkably similar in their pronouncements, even if they have not heard of one another or their “systems.” To me that points to their teachings, regardless of time or place, as stemming from the same Source. I believe that it was my brief glimpse of that that re-inspired my understanding of Christian teaching which I had completely discounted due to its inability at the time to address my experiences.
 
Detales said:
We’re off topic here, but I won’t resist adding that Ramana Maharshi is one of my favorites, somone whom I wish I had met after I knew my Mentor, who introduced me to his works. My Mentor held Ramana in the highest light and quoted him often, and was mistaken for one of his direct students, though he was not. I have found that all such “realized ones” are remarkably similar in their pronouncements, even if they have not heard of one another or their “systems.” To me that points to their teachings, regardless of time or place, as stemming from the same Source. I believe that it was my brief glimpse of that that re-inspired my understanding of Christian teaching which I had completely discounted due to its inability at the time to address my experiences.
Click to expand...
Not to get into your buisness…
but what’s an example of an experience that Hinduism could adress that Catholosism could not?
 
I will be glad to answer your question, including my take on how that system got its trinity, but you, from the standpoint of a Catholic who may not have “been there,” or who might have been but calls it something else, may not like what I have to say. I would also like to know that you understand the admonition that if you “get” what this might be about, because it is on a different footing, you may have to change some of your conclusions that are presently based on faith. Or you might dismiss them summarily. I don’t care either way, but I do wish you to affirm your role of voluntary agency here beyond mere curiosity. If it is just curiosity, best not go there.

But first, you might click on that feature that lets you see the history of someone else’s posts* and read some of my other contributions on here. If you are still interested, I will answer your question(s) by private message as I agree with my Mentor, who said he would speak about his experience only if asked. I don’t mind saying a lot of things on here, because I don’t think we are on here to play, despite having fun, but I have had some very scandalized reactions to some of my statements by overly pious members who are far more vested in missionaryism than in thinking or learning. As far as I’m concerned, I earned my views, I didn’t adopt them except as the result of demonstration, experience, and my own reasoning, and by extension, agreement with others who have similarly traveled such a road of discovery.

On that note, please be advised that I am speaking of *my own *experience, and am not on here to teach what Hinduism or any such thing is. Nor am I on here to mar any wonderful thing attributable to the Church. As I have stated, my journey reviatlaized my understanding of the faith I had rejected, though I do not see that in an innocent cradle Catholic way. Also, I have provided a list of authors who explicate the foundations of the Perennial understanding far better that any attempt on my part, if it is your scholastic intent to learn of the root of that way.

*I discovered by accident that if you click on a poster’s name, you can get to things like their profile and posts. Maybe I’m a laggard in this finding, but I may not be alone, lol!
 
Detales said:
I will be glad to answer your question, including my take on how that system got its trinity, but you, from the standpoint of a Catholic who may not have “been there,” or who might have been but calls it something else, may not like what I have to say. I would also like to know that you understand the admonition that if you “get” what this might be about, because it is on a different footing, you may have to change some of your conclusions that are presently based on faith. Or you might dismiss them summarily. I don’t care either way, but I do wish you to affirm your role of voluntary agency here beyond mere curiosity. If it is just curiosity, best not go there.

But first, you might click on that feature that lets you see the history of someone else’s posts* and read some of my other contributions on here. If you are still interested, I will answer your question(s) by private message as I agree with my Mentor, who said he would speak about his experience only if asked. I don’t mind saying a lot of things on here, because I don’t think we are on here to play, despite having fun, but I have had some very scandalized reactions to some of my statements by overly pious members who are far more vested in missionaryism than in thinking or learning. As far as I’m concerned, I earned my views, I didn’t adopt them except as the result of demonstration, experience, and my own reasoning, and by extension, agreement with others who have similarly traveled such a road of discovery.

On that note, please be advised that I am speaking of *my own *experience, and am not on here to teach what Hinduism or any such thing is. Nor am I on here to mar any wonderful thing attributable to the Church. As I have stated, my journey reviatlaized my understanding of the faith I had rejected, though I do not see that in an innocent cradle Catholic way. Also, I have provided a list of authors who explicate the foundations of the Perennial understanding far better that any attempt on my part, if it is your scholastic intent to learn of the root of that way.

*I discovered by accident that if you click on a poster’s name, you can get to things like their profile and posts. Maybe I’m a laggard in this finding, but I may not be alone, lol!
Click to expand...
Pm me if you want.
But I want to know what this personal experience is.

I tried learning about hinduism, I called a temple but they did not speak english LOL

Im not realy interested in a book, anything can be put in a book. Personal experience is better.
 
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:
“Ekam evadvitiyam”
“He is One only without a second.”
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1
“Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah.”
“Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.”
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2
“Na tasya pratima asti”
“There is no likeness of Him.”
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3

All these verses, despite what some might say, seem to suggest that there is only One God. Why do Hindus seem to pray to three different gods? From what i understand they believe that gods in Hindu are not gods the same way God is God but are manifestions of God. In addition, most hindus are split into two groups Shavites (Shiva) and Vashavites (Vishnu). The three Gods are considered attributes of God, Vishnu (Protector), Braham (Creator) and Shiva (Destroyer/Maintainer). I am not a Hindu so please forgive my answer if it seems incomplete.

I just came across a verse from reading the tenth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam that might hel illustrate the point further;

“Great demigods like Lord Brama and Lord Siva,…are simply parts of His (i.e. God’s) spiritual identity.” ch.8 text 37.

I wrote this in another form.
 
Sagefrakrobatik said:
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:
“Ekam evadvitiyam”
“He is One only without a second.”
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1
“Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah.”
“Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.”
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2
“Na tasya pratima asti”
“There is no likeness of Him.”
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3

All these verses, despite what some might say, seem to suggest that there is only One God. Why do Hindus seem to pray to three different gods? From what i understand they believe that gods in Hindu are not gods the same way God is God but are manifestions of God. In addition, most hindus are split into two groups Shavites (Shiva) and Vashavites (Vishnu). The three Gods are considered attributes of God, Vishnu (Protector), Braham (Creator) and Shiva (Destroyer/Maintainer). I am not a Hindu so please forgive my answer if it seems incomplete.

I just came across a verse from reading the tenth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam that might hel illustrate the point further;

“Great demigods like Lord Brama and Lord Siva,…are simply parts of His (i.e. God’s) spiritual identity.” ch.8 text 37.

I wrote this in another form.
Click to expand...
Good post.

One must also keep in mind the fact that some Vaishnavas (those who see God as Vishnu) might say that Brahma and Shiva are “merely” demigods; and some Shaivas (those who see God as Shiva) might say that, alternatively, Brahma and Vishnu are merely demigods. The Srimad Bhagavatam is scripture of the Vaishnava tradition, in which Shiva is seen as a demigod.

But some Vaishnavas and some Shaivas both see Vishnu and Shiva as One, though called by different names.
 
Also there is a documentary on PBS about the history of India its last airing i believe is next monday at 9. Its pretty interesting it traces the Archaelogical evidence of the Rig Veda back to Turkmenstan, explores the cities during the time of the Mahabrata, looks at the significances of the Silk road when it came to trade, and highlights the Muslim ruler Akbar and how he used religious diplomacy to unify India.

http//www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top