Is Hinduism Atheistic?

Started to wonder today if Hinduism is actually Atheistic..somehow I am getting a weird feeling it could actually be.

No doubt we talk about God/Karma/Devas/Devis and so on but at the end of the day the spirit of total surrender is somewhat not in practice even by those who call themselves believers.

Astrology for example caters for difficult situations in life...doing Parihaars are supposed to ward of bad times etc.

I am not saying that it is wrong but some part of us might feel that "hey where is God in this equation? If I am supposed to be a Theist why am I not accepting the Will of God but trying to change the situation by usage of specific mantras and rituals to change the outcome...is this Halal or Haram?"

Yes..this question should come to our mind cos if we feel we believe in God and Karma why try to make major changes using religion.

If we want to make changes in life fine..for eg when we are sick we take meds..that just logic for survival of species BUT we are not dragging religion in to swallow an antibiotic.

I feel usage of religion/name of God/mantras etc to counteract effects which are Gods will is like using God to fight God.

Is this not antagonizing God?

Where is the surrender?

Totally absent.

Isn't it easier to be honest about ourselves and decide how we want life to be, that is lead a life most conducive for survival of species and do not drag God in for practical purpose and not to oppose Him in practices deemed spiritual like astrology or any parihaar.

If we want to believe in God..then surrender unto Him unconditionally and let whatever will be will be..we cant have it both ways..cos if we have it both ways that would only mean we are actually Atheistic but choose to call ourselves Theist.

Dear Renuka,

Hinduism is about self elevation to the level of divinity. Whatever resources you can use to reach that goal is acceptable. But what resources are available to one is itself well designed by God. We see all varieties of people with varying abilities, the idea being one of interplay among them and learning from what others have and what we lack.

Hinduism is what you want to believe. Yes, some aspects of Hinduism can be atheistic. The advantic aspect is akin to the Bhudditist practice and an active God-head is not needed. You can accept in the super soul, Brahman, Karma etc.
I do not believe in Horoscope, pariharam, mantram etc as religion.


Religion is a philosophy, and very individualistic. I do not believe in organized religion.

If you take the Hara Krishna group, they behave just like any Abrahamic Religion, for that matter even the Bhakti marg (on its own) is like any other religion. The Karma marg and Gyan marg are unique to Hinduism.

Most of the "Hindutva" practice is similar to other religions.

Your words of surrender and faith in God are there, but not in Hinduism. They are there in the words of the Alwars and Nayanars, Tamil mystics who believed in a Single Loving God, Who Loves All, in Whom we can find solace and strength. The great scholar and social reformer, Sri Ramanuja - known in Tamil as Emperumaanaar or Udayavar - structured Vedic thought based on Alwars' theology, creating a faith based tradition open to all castes and communities.

hi

yes.....charvaka system is also part of hinduism....hinduism is ALL INCLUSIVE...BUDDHISM AND JAINISM PART OF HINDUISM....INFACT


MAHAVISHNU AVATARA TOO....NETI NETI THEORY TOO...

Am tempted to observe that, mutatis mutandis, this situation has been alluded to in the very beginning of the upadesham by Lord Sri Krishna Paramaathma as related by Samjaya in Chapter 2, slokam 11 of our Bhagavath-Geetha beginning:

ashochyaananvashochasthvam.......

Here in this forum the subject is "the will of God" and man (and woman) living under it and "antagonising" God; there in the Geetha it is the fear of committing adharmam by killing one's gurus, relatives, friends. "You speak the words of a wise man, but the enlightened do not worry about these things," says Paramaathma. Same here.

Could the paramount truth be that it is by God's will that we exist and cease to exist? Act and do not act? Commit paapam and achieve punyam? Attain moksham or go to narakam?

Shall I go further and say that once you accept that all things happen by the will of God, then it follows that you fall sick by the will of God, take medication, recover or die by His will?

Stretching this, you even commit paapam by His will, do praayaschittham, atonement, surrender to Him, all at His will.

I do not claim to be among the "enlightened" in the Paramaathma's words. But, if He has of his own free Will given me faculties, an independent mind, an enquiring nature, a sense of values, a capacity to observe, research, assess and evaluate, and come to a conclusion, is all this necessarily antagonistic? Is it "using God to fight God"?

Rather, on the contrary, is it not God performing his Will through me?

Did not God create me? Is He not tending to me while I am alive? When I die, will that not be a manifestation of His will? When He weighs up my merits and demerits and gives judgment whether I should go Paramapatham or to Narakam, is not that also an expression of His divine will?

Where, in this context, comes the imagined Mahaa-Bhaaratha Yuiddham between "Theist" and "Atheist"?

In Srimad Raamayaanam, we read about the atheist senior anchorite Jaabaali preaching the evil doctrine pf Naasthikam and trying to mislead Lord Sree Raama and to induce Him to disobey Emperor Dasharatha's commands to leave Ayodhya and sojourn in the forest for 14 years and hand over the throne of Ayodhya to his younger step-brother Bharatha. Sree Raama rebukes him angrily in no uncertain manner. See Baala Kaanda Sargas 108 to 109.

Yet, at his coronation on victoriously returning to Ayodhya after the end f thje Raama-Raavvana Yuiddham 14 years later, Sree Raama graciously not only invites Jaabaali to the grand event but presents to him the same gifts as given to the other anchorites.

"Theists" and "non-Theists", agnostics, positive atheists, negative atheists, middle-of-the-road atheists, adharmists, believers and non-believers, all have their (rightful) place in the grand scheme of things that comprises life under our eternal Sanathana Dharmam.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Correction:

In my last posting earlier today I wrote, inter alia:

"In Srimad Raamayaanam, we read about the atheist senior anchorite Jaabaali preaching the evil doctrine pf Naasthikam and trying to mislead Lord Sree Raama and to induce Him to disobey Emperor Dasharatha's commands to leave Ayodhya and sojourn in the forest for 14 years and hand over the throne of Ayodhya to his younger step-brother Bharatha. Sree Raama rebukes him angrily in no uncertain manner. See Baala Kaanda Sargas 108 to 109."

The last sentence should have read: "See Ayodhya Kaandam Sargas 108 to 109."

My apologies forf the inadvertent error.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

renuka said:

Started to wonder today if Hinduism is actually Atheistic..somehow I am getting a weird feeling it could actually be.

Click to expand...

Have you read Jaimini pUrva mimAmsA (or alternatively called karma mimAmsa) sutrAs with explanatory notes? If not, and if you have time, please do so.

Even reflection on the very word mimAmsA's origins which roughly translates as "critical thinking" will lead you to further questioning on the topic you have raised.

Also please try to parse the word “AstikA” the term which was used in the days of lore as contrasted by the the words “believers” and “non-believers” we use currently to differentiate theism and atheism, and you have the answer to your query.

hi

BHASMI BHOOTASYA DEHASYA PUNARAAGAMANAM KUTAHA?.......

zebra16 said:

Have you read Jaimini pUrva mimAmsA (or alternatively called karma mimAmsa) sutrAs with explanatory notes? If not, and if you have time, please do so.

Even reflection on the very word mimAmsA's origins which roughly translates as "critical thinking" will lead you to further questioning on the topic you have raised.

Also please try to parse the word “AstikA” the term which was used in the days of lore as contrasted by the the words “believers” and “non-believers” we use currently to differentiate theism and atheism, and you have the answer to your query.

Click to expand...

Thank you..will read.

When I start to think about the topic, I feel that the word hinduism is a misfit. There are so many contrasting and intersecting paths, and somehow, all these have been knitted into our minds as one... A myriad of fascinating stories, concepts and logic has been woven into a loose fabric of sorts such that it represents a superset of colours, and one were to like a particular colour, he could pick that thread and follow it along, and another could pick a different colour and follow a quite different path, and there would be bickering and internal differences among them, yet, there woudl be this common feeling of standing on the same fabric that would unite them.

auh said:

When I start to think about the topic, I feel that the word hinduism is a misfit. There are so many contrasting and intersecting paths, and somehow, all these have been knitted into our minds as one... A myriad of fascinating stories, concepts and logic has been woven into a loose fabric of sorts such that it represents a superset of colours, and one were to like a particular colour, he could pick that thread and follow it along, and another could pick a different colour and follow a quite different path, and there would be bickering and internal differences among them, yet, there woudl be this common feeling of standing on the same fabric that would unite them.

Click to expand...

What is in a name
That which we call a rose,
By any other name,
Would smell as sweet.--Shakespeare.

"When I start to think about the topic, I feel that the word hinduism is a misfit."

Our religion and way of life is Sanathana Dharmam, not "hinduism" -- a label foisted on us by alien invaders a few centuries ago. They called us "sindhus", i.e. people living on the banks of the Sindhu (Indus) River. That later became "Hindus", and our religion and way of life became "Hinduism". The labels are misfits.

The whole of the Indus Valley is now in the hands of enemy invaders. And we can do little about it.

But we still cling to historic antiquities (to maintain our ego). And divide ourselves into cults and sub-cults.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

hi

may be WE misfit in many places....the name hindu....worship....poorva mimasa never agreed with vedanta....vedanta never

much importance in rituals/karmakanda...

S Narayanaswamy Iyer said:

"When I start to think about the topic, I feel that the word hinduism is a misfit."

Our religion and way of life is Sanathana Dharmam, not "hinduism" -- a label foisted on us by alien invaders a few centuries ago. They called us "sindhus", i.e. people living on the banks of the Sindhu (Indus) River. That later became "Hindus", and our religion and way of life became "Hinduism". The labels are misfits.

The whole of the Indus Valley is now in the hands of enemy invaders. And we can do little about it.

But we still cling to historic antiquities (to maintain our ego). And divide ourselves into cults and sub-cults.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Click to expand...

The word Hind is also an old Arabic name.
The Prophets 1st wife was married twice and widowed twice before she married him.

She had a son..some sources say its a daughter from a previous marriage..his/her name was Hind.

It seems the word Hind is taken to mean 100 camels but its only a speculation.

Interesting to note the word Hind was present in Pre Islamic era much before any invasion.

"Hind" is a name of African origin. Not pre-Muslim Arabic. Means a female deer, most likely a red deer.

In the English language "hind" means a female deer, and "hart" a male deer. Pronounced "haind", as in "mind", "find".

In Sanskrit "heena" means left, abandoned, forsaken, destitute, deprived of, without. "Bhakthi-heena", for example, means without devotion.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

S Narayanaswamy Iyer said:

"Hind" is a name of African origin. Not pre-Muslim Arabic. Means a female deer, most likely a red deer.

In the English language "hind" means a female deer, and "hart" a male deer. Pronounced "haind", as in "mind", "find".

In Sanskrit "heena" means left, abandoned, forsaken, destitute, deprived of, without. "Bhakthi-heena", for example, means without devotion.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Click to expand...

My dearest Sir..It has arabic origins too.

Some words are seen in more than one language.

For eg the word Simba means Lion in Swahili(Africa) and its very similar to Simha of Sanskrit.

Also Sunjata(pronounced Sahnjhetyah)[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] also from an African language sounds very Indian but its not...It means Hungry Lion.

[/FONT]

My dear, dear Renuka.

Accepted. Thanks.

After all, some anthropologists claim that all of us descended from a primordial "Ruth", an African lady.

(Mao Tse-tung's folk stubbornly say no, we all came from the "Peking man". But what of it? Lord Buddha was not homo sinensis?)

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

S Narayanaswamy Iyer said:

My dear, dear Renuka.

Accepted. Thanks.

After all, some anthropologists claim that all of us descended from a primordial "Ruth", an African lady.

(Mao Tse-tung's folk stubbornly say no, we all came from the "Peking man". But what of it? Lord Buddha was not homo sinensis?)

S Narayanaswamy Iyer

Click to expand...

Dear Sir..I have a super soft corner for Africans..I simply love them.

My dear, dear Renuka

Good to know.

However, just as there are no "Indians" but Keralites, Tamilians, Telegus, Kannadites, Gujarathis, Bengalis, Kashmiris, Maharashtrians, Odissans, and so on, there are no "Africans", a label invented by foreigners.

I have met several at overseas Universities and at international conferences and spoken to them.

They identify themselves by hundreds of tribes, e.g. Hausa, Masai, Zulu, Bantu, Baya, Goram, Nsukka, Falani, Ambona, Hadendoa, Arab, Berber, Tulsi, Watusi, Swahili, Pygmy, Bushman, Xhosa, Swazi, Mangbetu.

Each are proud of their traditions, their tongues, their cultures, their dress, their food, their music and song, their dances, their rites and rituals. In short their separate identities.

I have no presumptions (pre-assumptions) about other peoples. I take them as they come. More as human (fallible) individuals than as representatives of any particular continent (or country).

I even doubt if there is a "Chinese". Hokkiens will object if you call them Cantonese. Teochews will tell you off if you address them as Hainanese. Tibetans and East Turkmenistanis (from former Sinkiang) will likely kick you if you call them Han.

Patronising and ignorant Americans spout about East Asians. Would a self-respecting Japanese like being called a Korean or a Chinese?

Et cetera, ad nauseam.

Warmest regards.

S Narayanaswamy Iyer