Orthodoxy vs Orthopraxy

[the dauer]

Where is most emphasis placed? What makes someone Hindu? What are the defining characteristics of someone who is Hindu?

Is orthodoxy, the strict adherance to doctrines of belief

or orthopraxy, a particular way of living life through laws of ritual and morality

more imporatant in Sanatana Dharma? Is it a balance of the two? Would the presence of one be more important than the presence of the other?

Dauer

[BlackBillBlake]

Very good questions.

What makes someone a Hindu? I think really it is the acceptance of the Vedas as Divinely inspired scriptures or revelations that is the basis of it. It is different for those born within the Hindu tradition and those coming to it from outside, but in both cases, acceptance of the authority of the Vedas and other Vedic Scriptures is the one uniting thing. Because the way in which the Shastra (scripture) is understood or interpreted varies enormously.

Followers of Sanatana Dharma, Sanatana-Dharmis, Hindus, call them what you will all believe that there is God, Brahman. Ideas and teachings about the nature of God once again vary in different schools and traditions. Commonly accepted beliefs include re-incarnation, the immortality of the soul, the law of karma, and the possibility of Moksha - liberation from the cyclic round of birth and death, although again, this Moksha is conceived of in different ways.

Where orthodoxy is concerned, it is hard to say what is orthodoxy in Hinduism. There are schools that do consider themselves orthodox, for example, the Hare Krishna movement are orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas, but they do not represent a 'norm' that is universally acknowledged. There are other orthodox lineages of gurus too. It is easier in many respects to speak of traditional and modern hinduism. Modern Hinduism really began with Sri Ramakrishna, who lived in the late 19th c. Figures such as Ghandi, Rabrindrath Tagore, Sri Aurobindo represent major figures in this 'renaissance', and there are many others. Followers of such teachings tend to place less emphasis on tradition in some ways, yet still it is there, as a kind of bedrock.

The goal of all Vedic teaching is to realize God, to know Him, become one with Him. All that tends toward this is accepted - and again, there is a very wide range of practices, ranging from ritual to meditation. There are laws and regulations, both to ensure social cohesion and as an aid to yoga practice. The rules governing different stages of life are different, so for the young one set of rules and ideals is prescribed, another for the householder and so on.

It is said by Krishna in the Gita that the Vedas are of no further use to one who has realized Brahman. The Vedas are compared to a small pond, Brahman to a great ocean. All the purposes of the pond can be served by the ocean and more.
So it is practice and ultimate realization that are the most important things - in my opinion.

I hope Bhaskar will add something to this.

Om Shanti.

[the dauer]

BBB

Would you say that in practice it could be compared to a religion that has various rites and not-so-rigid beliefs that are all still pointing in the same direction? I don't think rite would be the correct word, but I can't think of a better one. How pervasive is any individual's particular religious discipline? How does it show up in a person's activities? How do the practices shift from stage to stage? How much of Hindu practice is cultural and how much is religious? Is there a distinguishment?

What is the most bare-bones set of beliefs and practices that would qualify as Hindu?

Dauer

[Jedi]

Where is most emphasis placed? What makes someone Hindu? What are the defining characteristics of someone who is Hindu?

Is orthodoxy, the strict adherance to doctrines of belief

or orthopraxy, a particular way of living life through laws of ritual and morality

more imporatant in Sanatana Dharma? Is it a balance of the two? Would the presence of one be more important than the presence of the other?

Dauer
According to Hinduism, there is truth and there is ignorance. If some one knows the truth about life, they are called enlightened and are free of any sorrow or unhappiness. If they are ignorant, they are basically like us... we are all ignorant, restless, stupid, selfish and attached to so many unimportant things in life and we are unhappy. Why are we so unhappy? - well thats because we are covered in these so called sheaths of ignorance . We are deluded by our ego, by our anger, frustration, want for power , etc. that we don't see that we can be happy with out these things anyway.

When you remove these sheaths, you get more and more close to seeing the true you. How do you remove them? well, you live a pious life. So, I guess thats where leading a life of rules and beliefs comes in. But once you know the truth, you will see that you really don't need any of these rules or anything , but until you see the truth, you have to have belief in the rules and regulations.

[the dauer]

Jedi,

so the entire system serves as a framework for experience until there is an experience that negates the need for a framework?

Dauer

[Jedi]

Jedi,

so the entire system serves as a framework for experience until there is an experience that negates the need for a framework?

DauerYea.

[Bhaskar]

That was very succintly summed up dauer good job :).

Now your questions:

Would you say that in practice it could be compared to a religion that has various rites and not-so-rigid beliefs that are all still pointing in the same direction? I don't think rite would be the correct word, but I can't think of a better one.
Actually I think of it as vice versa, there are various kinds of rites, but the core belief is the same. There small differences in the ways in which these are interpreted and understood, giving rise to different modes of practise. These again are just sets of paths according to needs of the different types of seekers.


How pervasive is any individual's particular religious discipline? How does it show up in a person's activities? How do the practises shift from stage to stage?
Depends entirely on the person, their particular mental make up and the spiritual path they are following. But basically Hinduism, like all religion, ought to pervade the followers life as completely as possible. The values and teachings of the religion are to be practised in everyday life and not just pickled and stored in the prayer room.

How much of Hindu practice is cultural and how much is religious? Is there a distinguishment?

There is little distinction, because a majority of Indian/Hindu culture revolves around spirituality. If you look at Indian classical music, expecially of he carnatic school, the almost all the composers are great realised saints, the music is almost entirely spiritual or devotional in nature. The poetry, drama, dance, theatre, painting...almost every indegenous art form in India, over the ages, focuses primarily on spiritual matters. even when texts such as artha shastra, which deals with economics, fundamentals of dharma are applied and used all through the texts. At the core of all of Indian culture, the very soul of India is in spirituality. Be that buddhist, hindu, bahai'i, Jain, Sikh, muslim or sufi, whichever art form it be, which ever walk of life, spirituality, dharma and religion are ever present as a driving force.

[the dauer]

Actually I think of it as vice versa, there are various kinds of rites, but the core belief is the same. There small differences in the ways in which these are interpreted and understood, giving rise to different modes of practise. These again are just sets of paths according to needs of the different types of seekers.

Is there anything of these paths that is consistently found in all of them?


Depends entirely on the person, their particular mental make up and the spiritual path they are following. But basically Hinduism, like all religion, ought to pervade the followers life as completely as possible. The values and teachings of the religion are to be practised in everyday life and not just pickled and stored in the prayer room.

This is actually something I would be interested in learning a little more about. In America where I am, religious Judaism is often viewed as backwards or odd precisely because it is found outside of the place of prayer, from the dietery laws, to the laws of marriage, to the frequency of Jewish festivals including the Jewish sabbath which is much more intensive, to specific laws of charity, and the list goes on. I would imagine that Hindus here have felt the same clash with Western society's take on religion.

I know it may seem trivial, but do you think you could just briefly go over some of the parts of life that Hinduism effects? Even if it's just a simple sentence as I have done, I think this is one of those places where, while the rituals may not be the same, there will be many similar areas covered.


There is little distinction, because a majority of Indian/Hindu culture revolves around spirituality.

Is there anything that is regional?

If you look at Indian classical music, expecially of he carnatic school, the almost all the composers are great realised saints, the music is almost entirely spiritual or devotional in nature. The poetry, drama, dance, theatre, painting...almost every indegenous art form in India, over the ages, focuses primarily on spiritual matters.

Is art considered a spiritual path?

even when texts such as artha shastra, which deals with economics, fundamentals of dharma are applied and used all through the texts.

In the case of the artha shastra, would it be that dharma was considered a fact more or less regardless of its connection to religion? Sort of like a Western philosopher making reference to a popular theory?

At the core of all of Indian culture, the very soul of India is in spirituality. Be that buddhist, hindu, bahai'i, Jain, Sikh, muslim or sufi, whichever art form it be, which ever walk of life, spirituality, dharma and religion are ever present as a driving force.

In these times how has the influence of Western society effected India's spirituality?

Dauer

[BlackBillBlake]

BBB

Would you say that in practice it could be compared to a religion that has various rites and not-so-rigid beliefs that are all still pointing in the same direction? I don't think rite would be the correct word, but I can't think of a better one. How pervasive is any individual's particular religious discipline? How does it show up in a person's activities? How do the practices shift from stage to stage? How much of Hindu practice is cultural and how much is religious? Is there a distinguishment?

What is the most bare-bones set of beliefs and practices that would qualify as Hindu?

Dauer
Bhaskar has dealt with most of these points - but I'd just like to add a few comments.
My own take on things is that in the Vedic world view there is not the strict separation of religious/secular that exists in western culture. "All life is yoga" said Sri Aurobindo. In effect, Hindu culture can be seen as an attempt to spiritualize the whole of life, to bring human institutions etc. into a harmony with the Divine. Thus, there are shastras that deal with things the west regards as outside the purview of religion - architecture, commerce - many things.

In my view, both belief and 'rites', lets say practices - both vary to some extent. On one hand there is the ritualistic side of things - the popular side we could say of Hinduism. On the other hand (and there is an overlap here) is yoga, or rather several different yogas. These are different sets of methods by which one can attain realization, knowledge and love of God. For the true yogi, yoga penetrates every aspect of existence. It is a way of life that is really 7/24 as the saying goes. The idea is that everything has to brought into its right relation with God. All one's activities should be dedicated to Him, given up to Him. This applies to everything from meditation down to the most mundane actions. One should remember and think of Him constantly.

The path will be different for different individuals with their varying karma, disposition etc. and this has always been recognized, hence the variety of different types of yoga. It could even be said that every individual is wholly unique, and follows a path unique to themself. The divisions of yoga are simply guidelines. Many combine elements of different yogas in their practice.

Practices may shift. A person may become attracted to a particular guru, method of yoga or teaching, and take on new practices. There is no hard and fast rule.

These are just a few thoughts. Once again Dauer, this is a nice thread you've started.

Om Shanti.

[BlackBillBlake]

In these times how has the influence of Western society effected India's spirituality?

Dauer
I wanted to say something on this, because once again it is relevant in the context of the great Hindu sages of recent times. Sri Aurobindo, Sri Yukteshwar, Paramhansa Yogananda and many others have taken the view that a new kind of synthesis is needed between western science and Hinduism. This has led to an enrichment of the teachings of these Masters, and others who have thought along the same lines.
Where Christianity has always struggled really to come to terms with science, this conflict doesn't seem to exist in the case of the Vedas. Ideas held by quantum physicists like 'non-locality' are in line with ancient Vedic ideas. With some conservative factions, there may be some rejection of science, or at least some of its findings.

See the thread 'How to know God' in this forum for a very interesting discussion of themes related to this by Prof. A.Goswami.

[BlackBillBlake]

In these times how has the influence of Western society effected India's spirituality?

DauerI wanted to say something on this, because once again it is relevant in the context of the great Hindu sages of recent times. Sri Aurobindo, Sri Yukteshwar, Paramhansa Yogananda and many others have taken the view that a new kind of synthesis is needed between western science and Hinduism. This has led to an enrichment of the teachings of these Masters, and others who have thought along the same lines.
Where Christianity has always struggled really to come to terms with science, this conflict doesn't seem to exist in the case of the Vedas. Ideas held by quantum physicists like 'non-locality' are in line with ancient Vedic ideas. With some conservative factions, there may be some rejection of science, or at least some of its findings.

See the thread 'How to know God' in this forum for a very interesting discussion of themes related to this by Prof. A.Goswami.

[Bhaskar]

Is there anything of these paths that is consistently found in all of them?



Yes. The one thing that is common to all paths in Hinduism, indeed, common to all religions, is love for the lord. No religious practise can be taken up without love. Worship out of fear is meaningless, since it brings no peace. Almost all Hinduism preaches vegetarianism. Other common principles are ahimsa (non-violence), the cultivation of dispassion for worldly pleasures, discrimination between good and bad, dharma, etc. This again is more universal than just hinduism.

This is actually something I would be interested in learning a little more about. In America where I am, religious Judaism is often viewed as backwards or odd precisely because it is found outside of the place of prayer, from the dietery laws, to the laws of marriage, to the frequency of Jewish festivals including the Jewish sabbath which is much more intensive, to specific laws of charity, and the list goes on. I would imagine that Hindus here have felt the same clash with Western society's take on religion.

I know it may seem trivial, but do you think you could just briefly go over some of the parts of life that Hinduism effects? Even if it's just a simple sentence as I have done, I think this is one of those places where, while the rituals may not be the same, there will be many similar areas covered.

BBB already said what I have to say about this. Spirituality imbues every part of life, for it is the science of living a full life and reaching your potential. When starting on a journey, or a new enterprise, you choose an auspicious time and day (based on astrology), same goes for weddings and other functions. When you buy a new house you have rituals to perform before you start building and before you take up residence. Thus is a million small ways religion is incorporated into life, spiritualising the entire journey.



Is there anything that is regional?
Yes! One of the most beautiful things about Hinduism is its diversity and the beauty of each local practise. Almost each state in India has its own language or dialect, its own style of cuisine, its own style of music, painting, clothing, etc. All of these are spirituality in action. The music is almost always in praise or devotion of the lord in saguna or nirguna form. The art depicts scenes from our scriptural stories, the dance and drama do the same. Culture is veyr diverse regionally, yet it is very universal also, one can easily see thatw hich is in common, the soul of unity in the midst of diversity, the oneness in the core of all differences.



Is art considered a spiritual path?
In the upanishads we are taught that music is the easiest and fastest route to realisation, since music has the power invoke great devotion, at the same time it can impart knowledge (suggested reading: poems/songs of kabir) and it is also an excellent way to channel one's energy creatively and express oneself fully. Also the learning and practise of classical music takes years and tears and a great amount of discipline, therefore it is a very high sadhana.


In the case of the artha shastra, would it be that dharma was considered a fact more or less regardless of its connection to religion? Sort of like a Western philosopher making reference to a popular theory?
Dharmais the very soul of Hinduism. It is not possible to separate the two. Even the saguna form of the Lord in Sri Rama, Krishna, etc never ever went against dharma.


In these times how has the influence of Western society effected India's spirituality?

Dauer
BBB explained one side of this issue very well.

On the other hand, western civilization, with its materialism and "modern" morality, or lack thereof, has had a big and harmful impact on India, especially among the youth. There is a sharp decline in vegetarianism (linked to the coming of McDonald's et al. to India) and irreverence and atheism are on the rise. Those values of materialism that have come from the west have caught on possessed much of the country.

Yet, there remain a strong base of highly spiritual people, a large number of highly evolved teachers and yogis, mahatmas. Also, to balance the number of Hindus who have lost touch with Hinduism, there is a growing curiosity form the west and more and more people from other parts of the world are drawn to the religion and our beautiful land, so it kind of balances it also in some ways.

If I could wrap my words around you in a hug, I would, for with every post my love and respect for you grows. In the midst of all the bickering and fighting, you are the only person who has started and maintained a successful, peaceful, beneficial interfaith dialogue. God bless you.

[the dauer]

I wanted to say something on this, because once again it is relevant in the context of the great Hindu sages of recent times. Sri Aurobindo, Sri Yukteshwar, Paramhansa Yogananda and many others have taken the view that a new kind of synthesis is needed between western science and Hinduism. This has led to an enrichment of the teachings of these Masters, and others who have thought along the same lines.
Where Christianity has always struggled really to come to terms with science, this conflict doesn't seem to exist in the case of the Vedas. Ideas held by quantum physicists like 'non-locality' are in line with ancient Vedic ideas. With some conservative factions, there may be some rejection of science, or at least some of its findings.

What would this synthesis look like outside of being open to scientific discovery?

For Judaism there has been a similar situation about science where it is understood by the traditionalists that a current understanding of the Torah, which is said to predate all of creation, may be false, and therefore new scientific study is only helping them to reach a new understanding. Some things, like creation, haven't been understood as literal anyway. To me there are still scientific snags at times. Actually Kaballah seems to fare a bit better scientifically.

But when it comes to incorporating modernity, here is where the greatest division occurs. On the far right there are people dressing like their ancestors from Poland, trying to recreate those Polish lives. There are many lefts, from those who embrace the modern world without thinking twice to those who find ways to keep Judaism a part of all of their lives. It is very varied. Based on the two responses, is it fair to say Hinduism is now entering a similar situation?

On a sidenote: Is the word Hindu ever taken negatively, or the term Hinduism? What would be another way to say Hindu as an adjective and Hindu as an individual?

[the dauer]

Yes! One of the most beautiful things about Hinduism is its diversity and the beauty of each local practise. Almost each state in India has its own language or dialect, its own style of cuisine, its own style of music, painting, clothing, etc. All of these are spirituality in action. The music is almost always in praise or devotion of the lord in saguna or nirguna form. The art depicts scenes from our scriptural stories, the dance and drama do the same. Culture is veyr diverse regionally, yet it is very universal also, one can easily see thatw hich is in common, the soul of unity in the midst of diversity, the oneness in the core of all differences.

I read somewhere that Hinduism is a combination of many religions native to India. Is this accurate?


In the upanishads we are taught that music is the easiest and fastest route to realisation, since music has the power invoke great devotion, at the same time it can impart knowledge (suggested reading: poems/songs of kabir) and it is also an excellent way to channel one's energy creatively and express oneself fully. Also the learning and practise of classical music takes years and tears and a great amount of discipline, therefore it is a very high sadhana.

I agree about music. It can be very powerful, for good or for bad. What about other expressive forms like painting?


On the other hand, western civilization, with its materialism and "modern" morality, or lack thereof, has had a big and harmful impact on India, especially among the youth. There is a sharp decline in vegetarianism (linked to the coming of McDonald's et al. to India) and irreverence and atheism are on the rise. Those values of materialism that have come from the west have caught on possessed much of the country.

I see this as an issue for people in many of the world's religions. And it seems those in the throes of their materialistic values they are often unaware of what they have left behind. Although personally, I don't see atheism as a problem if it is still an atheism filled with awe of the world. I think it is when that awe and love is lost that things spin out of control.



If I could wrap my words around you in a hug, I would, for with every post my love and respect for you grows. In the midst of all the bickering and fighting, you are the only person who has started and maintained a successful, peaceful, beneficial interfaith dialogue. God bless you.

Thank you. I am trying my best. I'm hoping it can get some more people entering into honoring dialogue for themselves. This is an online hippy forum so peace and love should abound.

Dauer

[BlackBillBlake]

What would this synthesis look like outside of being open to scientific discovery?

For Judaism there has been a similar situation about science where it is understood by the traditionalists that a current understanding of the Torah, which is said to predate all of creation, may be false, and therefore new scientific study is only helping them to reach a new understanding. Some things, like creation, haven't been understood as literal anyway. To me there are still scientific snags at times. Actually Kaballah seems to fare a bit better scientifically.

But when it comes to incorporating modernity, here is where the greatest division occurs. On the far right there are people dressing like their ancestors from Poland, trying to recreate those Polish lives. There are many lefts, from those who embrace the modern world without thinking twice to those who find ways to keep Judaism a part of all of their lives. It is very varied. Based on the two responses, is it fair to say Hinduism is now entering a similar situation?

On a sidenote: Is the word Hindu ever taken negatively, or the term Hinduism? What would be another way to say Hindu as an adjective and Hindu as an individual?
To take the last question first - the teachings of Hinduism are known as 'Sanatana-Dharma' - this can be loosely translated as 'eternal religion' or 'eternal teachings'. One may refer to a Hindu as 'Sanatana-Dharmi', one who follows this Dharma.
The word 'Hindu' is probably derived from the name of the river Sindhu, and was originally used by foreigners to designate the inhabitants of India. Some don't like the term, and reject its use.

Where science is concerned, there is a very broad range of views. On one hand, Sri Aurobindo fully incorporates the theory of evolution into His system, seeing it as a progressive manifestation of the Divine in form. Others, more traditional in approach, reject evolution completely. Their situation is similar to what you describe in the case of traditionalist Jews, or indeed, traditionalists from other religions.

In a sense, all yoga is scientific. One is not told 'believe this and this' but act in this way and this way, and you will come to know for yourself. The idea is that the teachings are verifiable through experience.

Where modernity is concerned, again, there is much variation in response. There is no real reason to reject the findings of theoretical science, but where modern values, or the lack of them is concerned, much is really unacceptable. The emphasis of material development as the be all and end all of life, the idea that science somehow 'disproves' the truth of religion, lax moral standards - all this is pretty well rejected across the board. But also there is the notion that whilst the west needs spirituality, India needs material development.

In the case of people like myself, who have come to these teachings from outside, the situation is somewhat different. I find no problem in reconciling science, yoga and indeed other spiritual paths and beliefs. Nor did I have to reject Jesus Christ ( I was brought up as a 'Christian', as least obstensibly) in order to embrace the Dharma.

I hope that helps - once again, I'd like to say what a nice thread you've started here.

Love & peace.

[Bhaskar]

I read somewhere that Hinduism is a combination of many religions native to India. Is this accurate?
You could see it that way, I guess, but to me it seems more like a lot of Indian religions are just localised ways of practising Hinduism.



I agree about music. It can be very powerful, for good or for bad. What about other expressive forms like painting?

Same thing. All art, be it painting, be it dancing, be it theatre, it is all very aesthetically pleasing and spiritually centred. The classical native art, that is.



I see this as an issue for people in many of the world's religions. And it seems those in the throes of their materialistic values they are often unaware of what they have left behind. Although personally, I don't see atheism as a problem if it is still an atheism filled with awe of the world. I think it is when that awe and love is lost that things spin out of control.

I agree, atheism is not a problem. Indeed as Gurudev Swami Chinmayananda explained, any thinking man is at some point an atheist, but eventually turns to spirituality. I was a staunch atheist a few years ago, but it is the same awe of nature, the same love for all things bright and beautiful that led me to discover spirituality. Such atheism is very much a spiritual process.

A quick word on evolution and hinduism:

The 10 avatars of vishnu also represent the evolutionary progression (way before Darwin thought of it):
Matsya - Fissh (Life began in the oceans)
Kurma - Turtle (Amphibian, slowly coming to land)
Varaha - Boar (Wild animal)
Narasimha - half man half animal (Earliest man)
Vamana - Dwarf man (semi erect humanoids)
Parasurama - Warrior (working in tribes, hunting and food gathering)
Rama - Righteous King (Organisation of civilization into countries, trade, economics)
Krishna - The Complete Man (Represents various roles in civilized life, lover, cowherd, charioteer, advisor, friend, teacher, etc)
Buddha - The Enlightened One (Intellectual perfection)
Kalki - Yet to come (the future)