The Hinduism Thread

[roshan]

I am roshan and I am an atheist Hindu. Discuss Hinduism and ask questions about it here!

[Surreptishus]

...doesn't that make you Jain?

[roshan]

...doesn't that make you Jain?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. At about the time that Buddhism and Jainism was founded, most Hindu philosophies were atheistic, such as Sankhya, Vaiseshika and Vedanta in its original form. Jainism and Buddhism borrowed most of their teachings from the Hinduism of the time, and were particularly influenced by Sankhya, and they have retained their atheist teachings to this day. Jainism from what Ive read stays quite close to its roots in Sankhya. However during the middle ages Hindu philosophies gradually degenerated towards theism.

 

Today, pure atheism doesnt really exist amongst Hindus, although Advaita is almost atheist since it considers both the pantheistic god and the physical universe to be unreal compared to brahman, the monistic absolute reality. However amongst the educated Hindus of today there is a resurgence of interest in earlier atheist sects.

[Oerwinde]

I am roshan and I am an atheist Hindu. Discuss Hinduism and ask questions about it here!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, I have a question, explain being an athiest hindu. I don't know much about hinduism, but from my understanding its a polytheist religion. How can you be an athiest and a polytheist at the same time?

[roshan]

I am roshan and I am an atheist Hindu. Discuss Hinduism and ask questions about it here!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, I have a question, explain being an athiest hindu. I don't know much about hinduism, but from my understanding its a polytheist religion. How can you be an athiest and a polytheist at the same time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hinduism is a bit of a mess really. Historically there have been sects promoting atheism, monism, pantheism, monotheism, polytheism and pretty much every combination of every shade of the above beliefs.

 

The earliest Hindus, during Indias Vedic civilization, used to believe in a large pantheon of polytheist gods. These gods were basically deified forces of nature. However, they also recognized that these gods all had the same essence, that they all came from "one soul" - and that everything came from this same source. So basically, in addition to believing in a pantheon of personal gods they also believed in an impersonal supersoul. These are the beleifs of the early portion of the Vedas.

 

The later portions of the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Aranyakas focus on this impersonal soul, and in these texts it seems to have developed into some sort of abstract monistic universal principle, Brahman. This monistic universal principle is the focus of atheistic/agnostic Hinduism.

 

Later on interpreters of Hindu scriptures began to assign personal attributes to the impersonal supersoul of the early Vedas. This supersoul was developed into a pantheistic god. Most modern sects of Hinduism are variations of pantheism.

 

And even later on some philosophers came up with completely baseless monotheistic interpretations of Hindu scriptures.

 

So, Hinduism covers or has covered pretty much ever shade of philosophy out there!

[theslug]

Infidel! lolz

 

But seriously Hinduism is pretty cool same with Buddhism. You always get a bunch of fgts who are like yeah I'm a Buddhist but they don't know shi about it so yeah they are gay and should probably think about murdering themselves because they suck. I've always liked those religions because it involved chakra among other things. And that kind of stuff is pretty neat.

[Atreides]

Do atheists believe in souls?

[Oerwinde]

Infidel! lolz

 

But seriously Hinduism is pretty cool same with Buddhism.  You always get a bunch of fgts who are like yeah I'm a Buddhist but they don't know shi about it so yeah they are gay and should probably think about murdering themselves because they suck.  I've always liked those religions because it involved chakra among other things.  And that kind of stuff is pretty neat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think of all the major religions Buddhism makes the most sense.

 

I'm secular humanist myself.

[roshan]

Do atheists believe in souls?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Advaitic(monist) atheist Hindus do accept the idea of a universal principle called Brahman. Consciousness is said to be a property of this universal principle. The physical universe is relatively real, superimposed on Brahman, the absolute reality.

 

The soul is regarded as the consciousness within us. However the individuality of the soul is illusory. Actually all souls are non different from Brahman.

[Xard]

LMAO, this thread doesn't have any flaming and bickering unlike each thread which talks about christianity :crazy:

 

On-topic: Each one finds his/her way to view the world. Love and respect.

[Gorgon]

What are the principal tenements of Hinduism, discounting the million differen't denominations.

[metadigital]

Infidel! lolz

 

But seriously Hinduism is pretty cool same with Buddhism.  You always get a bunch of fgts who are like yeah I'm a Buddhist but they don't know shi about it so yeah they are gay and should probably think about murdering themselves because they suck.  I've always liked those religions because it involved chakra among other things.  And that kind of stuff is pretty neat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think of all the major religions Buddhism makes the most sense.

 

I'm secular humanist myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to correct you and say that Buddhism is a philosophy, but it seems that it is more correctly termed a "non-theistic religion (which seems to be self-contradictory, but then again it is metaphysics ).

 

Jung did some non-insignificant study of religion, and he came to the conclusion that Eastern religions were different to Western ones as introverts are different to extroverts in personal psychology; namely that the path to enlightenment in the Orient was through a deeper understanding of the self, whereas the Occident sought to find wisdom through a synthesis of the efforts of others: he reasoned that we need both approaches to facilitate individuation (which was what he believed should be the ultimate goal of a person, usually manifesting at Lebenswende, more commonly referred to as a mid-life crisis: "is this all there is to life?", etc; i.e. right back to metaphysics).

 

Thought this was relevant, too:

Major world religions

 

Do atheists believe in souls?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Advaitic(monist) atheist Hindus do accept the idea of a universal principle called Brahman. Consciousness is said to be a property of this universal principle. The physical universe is relatively real, superimposed on Brahman, the absolute reality.

 

The soul is regarded as the consciousness within us. However the individuality of the soul is illusory. Actually all souls are non different from Brahman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That means Brahman is actually identical to Jung's collective unconscious.

[astr0creep]

Do atheists believe in souls?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't.

 

But my atheism is... extreme.

Apparently.

[roshan]

The main difference between Buddhism and atheistic Hinduism is regarding the "soul". Buddhism views experience similarly to images flashing quickly one after another. Hinduism on the other hand disagrees with this idea and points out that there has to be something connecting these experiences, and points to memories as proof - the fact that people can go back and experience memories shows that there is something linking together experience. Buddhism argues that everything in the universe is is devoid of permanence and independent existence, and proposes "sunyata", Hinduism agrees that the universe is impermanent and dependent, but proposes that there is something permanent that experiences the impermanent material universe. Buddhism accepts reincarnation but is unable to explain what exactly reincarnates. Those Buddhists that deny the self say that it is just karma passing from one person to another.

 

In terms of viewing the universe, Buddhism postulates the void, while Hinduism postulates the absolute principle. Buddhism describes reality as being zero and empty, Hinduism says that it is infinite and all full.

 

Later on, some Mahayana Buddhists did accept the idea of a self and a universal principle. They proposed a relationship between Sunyata and Nirvana that was pretty much exactly the same as the relationship between Maya(the material universe) and Brahman in Vedantic Hinduism. Yogachara Buddhism said that only consciousness truly exists - exactly like Vedantic Hinduism. However these Buddhists were criticized by others for "degenerating into Hinduism".

 

That means Brahman is actually identical to Jung's collective unconscious.

 

Not really. Brahman cant really be described as anything that is a part of the human mind/psyche. You can say that the mind somehow taps into some force that enables it to be conscious. This force is Brahman/the soul, of which consciousness is a property.

 

Only through overcoming the human ego and gaining knowledge of the true nature of reality can the mind be enlightened and the consciousness liberated.

[metadigital]

That means Brahman is actually identical to Jung's collective unconscious.

Not really. Brahman cant really be described as anything that is a part of the human mind/psyche. You can say that the mind somehow taps into some force that enables it to be conscious. This force is Brahman/the soul, of which consciousness is a property.

 

Only through overcoming the human ego and gaining knowledge of the true nature of reality can the mind be enlightened and the consciousness liberated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said, that is identical to Jung's collective unconscious.

 

Jung postulated that the Psych, or consciousness (the bit of the mind that results from the focus of the attention) is only able to communicate with the collective unconscious through the personal unconscious (what Freud thought was only good for repressing thoughts about sexual gratification ).

 

The collective unconscious held such concepts as race memories and what he initially termed acausal parallelism (he later called this synchronicity), to describe events that are connected by meaning rather than cause-and-effect.

[Rosbjerg]

I'm looking forward to learning more about Hinduism.. I'm going to India for 6 months from October.. so I need to read alot about Indian culture and Religion .. any recommendations on books Roshan?

[roshan]

That means Brahman is actually identical to Jung's collective unconscious.

Not really. Brahman cant really be described as anything that is a part of the human mind/psyche. You can say that the mind somehow taps into some force that enables it to be conscious. This force is Brahman/the soul, of which consciousness is a property.

 

Only through overcoming the human ego and gaining knowledge of the true nature of reality can the mind be enlightened and the consciousness liberated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said, that is identical to Jung's collective unconscious.

 

Jung postulated that the Psych, or consciousness (the bit of the mind that results from the focus of the attention) is only able to communicate with the collective unconscious through the personal unconscious (what Freud thought was only good for repressing thoughts about sexual gratification ).

 

The collective unconscious held such concepts as race memories and what he initially termed acausal parallelism (he later called this synchronicity), to describe events that are connected by meaning rather than cause-and-effect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Metadigital, Hinduism has no concept of synchronicity. Brahman doesnt hold any memories, neither does it influence the functioning of the mind in any way. Vedantic Hinduism doesnt attribute any of the functions, thoughts(conscious or unconscious) or actions of the human mind/body to Brahman. Brahman unlike Jungs concept of collective unconscious(which is a storage of collective human memories) is not some sort of psychological theory. It is not part of the human mind.

 

Brahman is a monistic theory of the nature of the universe. Brahman is the universal principle - everything else is superimposed on it. Brahman is destitute of difference, is without a second, is changeless, and is a non agent. Aside from Brahman, nothing else truly exists. The only comparable concept to it that I can think of is the concept of Nirvana in some Mahayana sects like Yogachara.

[roshan]

I'm looking forward to learning more about Hinduism.. I'm going to India for 6 months from October.. so I need to read alot about Indian culture and Religion .. any recommendations on books Roshan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There isnt much you need to know about India, you will probably lean enough during your stay there. I dont think know of any good books out there on Indian culture and religion.

Edited January 29, 2007 by roshan

[Surreptishus]

I'm looking forward to learning more about Hinduism.. I'm going to India for 6 months from October.. so I need to read alot about Indian culture and Religion .. any recommendations on books Roshan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lonely Planet guide to India.

 

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/des...ions/asia/india

 

I don't know the site is but the book is definitely very helpful and informative. If you haven't already got it, get it as its aimed at westerners.

 

A couple of years ago my sister travelled to India to work for an NGO (Development In Action) for six months and she says the book was invaluable.

[Dark Moth]

LMAO, this thread doesn't have any flaming and bickering unlike each thread which talks about christianity :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not. We have to be respectful to other viewpoints on this forum. "

 

I do have a question though that is kinda off-topic. Would the Middle East be considered more occidental or oriental?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Dark Moth

[astr0creep]

LMAO, this thread doesn't have any flaming and bickering unlike each thread which talks about christianity :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not. We have to be respectful to other viewpoints on this forum. "

 

I do have a question though that is kinda off-topic. Would the Middle East be considered more occidental or oriental?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Middlental?

[kirottu]

LMAO, this thread doesn't have any flaming and bickering unlike each thread which talks about christianity :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously Hindus haven

Edited January 29, 2007 by kirottu

[Surreptishus]

LMAO, this thread doesn't have any flaming and bickering unlike each thread which talks about christianity :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Obviously Hindus haven

[metadigital]

Metadigital, Hinduism has no concept of synchronicity. Brahman doesnt hold any memories, neither does it influence the functioning of the mind in any way. Vedantic Hinduism doesnt attribute any of the functions, thoughts (conscious or unconscious) or actions of the human mind/body to Brahman. Brahman unlike Jung's concept of collective unconscious (which is a storage of collective human memories) is not some sort of psychological theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Jungists might use this concept to help diagnose and treat psychological maladies, but (technically) it is more metaphysics than analytical psychology. Jung didn't restrict himself to labelled areas, he was more interested in seeking ultiamte universal truth(s).

It is not part of the human mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technically the collective unconscious isn't part of the human mind either; human minds are part of it.

Brahman is a monistic theory of the nature of the universe. Brahman is the universal principle - everything else is superimposed on it. Brahman is destitute of difference, is without a second, is changeless, and is a non agent. Aside from Brahman, nothing else truly exists. The only comparable concept to it that I can think of is the concept of Nirvana in some Mahayana sects like Yogachara.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent, then, otherwise Jung would have been plagiarizing Hinduism.

 

So, what's the point of being a Hindu atheist, then? Why not just use Occam's Razor and be an atheist?

[julianw]

I do have a question though that is kinda off-topic.  Would the Middle East be considered more occidental or oriental?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on your relative position. If you are from the east say China, it's more occidental; and if you are from the west say Europe, it's more oriental; and if you are from the opposite surface of the earth say America, you become very confused...

 

Btw, I think India generally is considered South Asia (along with Bangladesh and Nepal and a few others) instead of the Middle East.