Hinduism

buddhism came from hinduism, neither declined but are geographically separated

hinduism came from vedism, indra was only ever vedic not hindu

>>681015
redpill me on relevance of jainism and sikhism

i heard the whole idea of karma itself comes from the former

>>681033
karma comes from tantrism which goes into far more depth on the topic than jainism

>>681033
>>681033
Sikh can be seen as a fusion of Hindu and Islamic philosophies, and would never come into being without the coming of (sufi) islam to India.

File: puran singh.png (97KB, 763x298px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 763x298px

>>681440
What do you think is Islamic about Sikhism?

>>681029
>>681038
Please.

>karma comes from tantra
Tantra was a later development. Karma was in use long before.

>buddhism came from hinduism
Buddhism came from sramana tradition. Hinduism came from vedic tradition. Sramana are not Hindu offshoots or vedic offshoots. They are literally different origins. Sramana originates from India proper. Vedic originates from proto-indo-european religion, aryan religion.

>>681033
Jainism is part of sramana tradition that came before Buddhism, they are not Hindu or Vedic. Once Buddhism left the India and Hindus became dominant, Jainism was being absorbed into Hindu. It was only in the last hundred or so years that Jainism was separated as its own again. Hindus used to think Jains and Buddhist as Hindus because one of their book said Buddha was a hindu reincarnation of God. Jains because they were forced to adapt to Hindu majority and adopted very similar practices.

Sikhism came from a guy who, like buddha, found the world unsatisfying. Early Sikhism fought against muslims because the muslim kings persecuted and killed many of the Sikh gurus.

>>681015
not at all.
the buddhist monasteries enjoyed maurya patronage for a time and became rich.
that was it.
later kingdoms had rulers doing their own thing.
>focus shifted
no. Shiva became the all encompassing character that he is later because different semi settled tribal groups started worshipping him. Shiva has no caste barrier to be worshipped. Hence whenever invaders assimilated, they were largely shiva worshippers. Case in point the scythian and white huns.

While it's true that Hinduism had a decline and is now experiencing a revival of sorts, there are many gods that are worshiped. The Trimurti consisting of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are popular deities. Ganesha and The Mother are also popular. Indra, Agni and Vayu among others are older Gods that correlate with the elements. They may or may not have aryan origin. It's debated quite a bit. But a large number of Hindus (I don't know if they have their own sect or not) believe that there is only one God, and all these "Gods" are just avatars of the one true God AKA Brahman.

>>681015
Is Hinduism literally the worst religion in human memory?

>>681620
If you take time to study it, you will find it to be a lot deeper than most Western religions such as Islam and Christianity

>>681497

Do you think Sikhism would have emerged had Islamic sufi orders not spread into Hindu India?

Are you even familiar with the many various strands of Islamic theology throughout history and their relation and difference in time and between places?

>>681620
i think its pretty clearly islam.

>>681015
>After the rise of Buddhism in India, Hinduism was pushed to the side for many years
We only know so much that patronage was pushed around. How many of the people were hindus or buddhists is hard to assert. The decline of hinduism is linked to hindu ruler not supporting buddhism.

>It's focus shifted away from vedic deities such as Indra and focused more on the Trimuri (Mainly Shiv、and Vishnu)
Rather Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu. Brahma lost importance and was barely worshipped.

>>681590
>now
>>681620
t. American who saw indiana jones and the temple of boom

>>682044
Yes. They could very well be influenced by the Jains or the Hindus mystics. Sufi were probably influenced by them as well.

>>682135
well the particular thing wouldn't have happened.
I mean, westerners conflate a lot of punjabi values with sikh values, since it is a largely ethnic religion.
the entire concept of langar for example is described by the greeks in the punjab.

>>682044
>Do you think Sikhism would have emerged had Islamic sufi orders not spread into Hindu India?

That is a separate and irrelevant question. I asked you what is Islamic within the Sikh religion, not what conditions caused Sikhism to form.

But to satisfy you, yes, the presence of Islam in south Asia was a necessary condition for Sikhism to form. Same with Judaism being a necessary condition for Christianity to form. Same with Judaism, Christianity, and Arab paganism being a necessary condition for Islam to form.

>>682167
Source on the Greeks and langar in Punjab? I thought Chishti Sufis started the tradition.

>>682297
http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/story/
it refers to the sindhis. I really hope this link isn't dead.
well and the sindh isn't punjab.
shit.

>>682323
fucking website ruining my credibility.

>>682367
>>682297
>>682323
since the archive doesn't list bibliography, scratch what i said.
I fucking hate incomplete archives

File: The inner sanctum of Sri Darbar Sahib.jpg (55KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x355px

Bump I guess.

>>682367
No problem brother.

Buddhism originally was hostile towards things like divination and incantation which is common in Hinduism. At varying times throughout history India came under the rule of Nomadic tribes from shaman territories who held favorable views on Hindu tantric practices but Buddhism was also tolerated especially considering that Buddhism had already incorporated such practices as well.

>>682088
>Brahma lost importance and was barely worshipped.
There is a single temple in south india for Brahma and there is a story or myth attched to why he isnt worshipped also/

>>681029
>hinduism came from vedism, indra was only ever vedic not hindu

So it's ok to say that there was no hinduism as we know it before the Guptas or maybe a bit before that?

>>681497
Not him, but

>Monotheistic;
>Believe to be an improvement of all other forms of religion;
>Five daily prayers;
>Is guided on the premise of a universal, transcendental and eternal order;
>At the end of life, you are united with God, rather than reincarnate;

This is Sufism with Hindu influence.

>>682088
>>684443
Brahma never lost importance as the ultimate Creator god, but the nature of God but his functions are totally different and more universal.

Brahma represents the Vedas and Vedic Knowledge and the True Veda itself.

Reading/Studying the Vedas vedas can by itself be considered as a worship of Brahma and this is what all Brahmins do.

File: image.png (39KB, 468x262px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 468x262px

>>684808
>Monotheistic

Nothing new. Been in India long before Islam existed.

>Believe to be an improvement of all other forms of religion;

We don't believe we're improving upon or continuing other religions. And if we don't think our religion is the best for us, why would we follow it? This perspective is not an Islamic one at all. The Islamic perspective is that people of all other religions are doomed if they don't accept Islam. The Sikh perspective is that people will be punished if they don't live a righteous and spiritual life irrespective of the religious label people give themselves.

>Five daily prayers;

It's 7, and even then it's not an absolute requirement. Praying a certain amount of times is not a pillar for us like in Islam. And again, daily prayers exist in Hinduism, Buddhism, and pretty much any religious practice.

>Is guided on the premise of a universal, transcendental and eternal order;

Explain this one.

>At the end of life, you are united with God, rather than reincarnate;

We believe in reincarnation, temporary heaven, temporary hell, and union with God. Islam believes in a hedonistic paradise for Muslims and permanent hell for non-Muslims.

>>684808
Also, our monotheism is different from Islamic monotheism. Muslims believe God is separate from the world while we believe God permeates everywhere.

>>681015
>>681029
>>681620
>>681715
>>684389

Yes, Hinduism is the worst religion of all. And its not just people from today. Its been like this for centuries.
Buddhism took over India between 6th to 8th century without a single drop of blood. Becuase it was way superior than hinduism as there was no caste system, people were nice and were treated equally.
Then the upper caste hindus took shelter to the kings out side india, and after certain time, with continuous battles, they started slaughtering buddhist monks all over india. Thus buddhism declined in India.
Also hindus are judgemental piece of shit ( Few of my family members are hindus)

>>684920
Isn't there some kind of despise towards Brahma due to the fact the he created a world of suffering that Shiva will benevolently destroy?

In the present days, most indians are simultaneously hinduists and buddhists. Opposing hinduism and buddhism looks generally absurd to me.

>>685167
Most indians aren't buddhist. Most are Hindus or Muslim.

>>684920
Well thats not true. Bramhins were the once who were the most racist bigots (still are) .
They are considered as extremists by rest of the hindus.
They spread hatred towards other religions the same way Jihadis do in middle east.

File: Govardhana-Giridhari.png (1MB, 895x776px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 895x776px

Sri Vaishnava here. It's because of Krishna, who came 5000 years ago, as the form of Narayana, as said in the Vedas is Brahman. Indra and the others (including Shiva and Brahma) are devas, (demigods), because of the influence of almost all scriptures, who proclaim Vishnu is the supreme being.

do you guys are good to reach jhanas ?

can someone fucking explain Hinduism to me.

Please greentext it.

>>681715
Nice argument, /b/ro

>>686082
>be hindu
>live in a small town with very open minded family
>watch n read news about other religions, feels glad hindus aren't such blood thirsty assholes like others
>grow up, start reading the history oh hinduism narrated by my side
>my ancestors were considered 'danavas' (demons) in all these stories
>Read some more of it
>before hinduism the land was ruled by tree worshipers.
>the first hindus came from nordic countries travelling through mid east, they were fire worshipers.
>tree worshipers were an advanced civilization living in peace and harmony
>it was easy for fireworshipers to defeat them in a battle
>Tree worshipers were no longer the ruler of this land, were exiled from the society
>fire worshippers imposed new rules, removing all the rights to tree worshippers by imposing a caste system
>denied education to them
>this went on for atleast 2 centuries
>Tree worshippers are still considered as untouchables in certain parts of india
>Hindus are assholes.

>>686558
fire is way more rad than trees, your ancestors deserve it

>>686082
there's no consensus aside from poluar dieties

>>685761
fuck off iskcon fag

>>686558
Fire destroys trees. Their god was stronger. You should have worshiped water instead.

>>685761
Narayana, Brahman, Mahadeva, so many "SUPREME" deities.

Which one is supreme? Hurry up and decide

>>688684
Allah.

>>685111
>Hindus are judgemental pieces of shit
All Indians are judgemental pieces of shit. Hindus especially, Christfags hate Hindus and Muslims, Muslims can be chill sometimes but usually hate Hindus.

Also
>implying that it isn't the city folk and the upper castes that are judgemental assholes more so than all followers as a whole
But yes, Buddhism a best religion.

>>685111
BR Ambedkar pls go.
Stick to writing constitutions.
>>685420
are you one of those dalit intellectuals who get by on reservation based jobs?