liberal vs. literal Hindu

[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.

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by Bandit

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.

Originally Posted by Bandit

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.

Originally Posted by Bandit

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.

Originally Posted by “Bandit”

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.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by jiii

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.

Well said Jiii. It is the experiential dimension that is stressed in Hinduism be it through bhakti or meditation, more than reading and understanding of a text or dogma. In fact, the masters or gurus are respected not because they are well-versed in any particular text, but because they have experienced the truth first hand.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Bandit]

oh my goodness. i have a lot of catching up to do here.

Agnideva, in quick reply to the little story on the tribe with the heirloom & inheritance, that was was strictly hypothetical. my response would be- the heirloom & inheritance would not literally exist.

once again, i am thankful for the honesty here. i was not expecting so many replies. give me a day or two to get back to you & the other members.

[Bandit]

Namaste
Agnideva, jiii, Obvious Child, & the others...

i have read through each of your replies several times. they have all been informative & i am left with a feeling of unity in Hinduism. my questions have been fully answered & somehow i feel we are on the same page with regards to the original point.

you have all been wonderful & this was also exciting for me to have learned some new things from the inside of Hinduism. i cant think of anything to add or any questions at the moment because everything has been answered very well & complete. that is from both the ancient & the modern views via literal vs. liberal.
thank you for staying on track with me through this, it was real good.
i will be back to visit again.

thank you for this meeting