What is hinduism?

[Dutyful]

Thank you desi. Now some ramblings of my own about this subject.
Some personal experiences - my own prejudices,supersitions, and how it went away and my own spritual quest. Admins can move it to a different post or delete if they think it is not relevant to the discussion because it is not really opiniated one way or other. Since i just ran into some topics talking about brahminism / sudras/moslem/hindu etc in this post, I am compelled to tell my real life story.
I

My curiosity is analytical; to understand our phobias, justifiable or not.

Since you had time to reflect on this, almost life changing, experience did you figure out why it caused so much grief and anger?. Was it the religion? or even an inter-caste marriage would have caused the same amount of anguish? Or did you come to terms simply and do not want to dwell on it?. Many of us might have or may in the future experience the same thing and it would help if we know how others coped with it. That it is NOT the end of world.

One thing I have difficulty to accept is: Why should either spouse change religion if LOVE was all that counted?. Is it not true that such a forced compromise belies the supposed LOVE between the spouses? I am earnestly hoping my questions do not open old wounds or unfairly pry into personal affairs.

Thanks for sharing such a poignant personal experience.

Cheers!

[Rajram]

I am not claiming whether Karma was or was not "mentioned" in Vedas. Only that Gita was the one that brought it to forefront. The shloka "Karmanyevadikaraste..." comes to my mind.

From the link that you've mentioned, "The concept of karma appeared in Hindu thought during the period 800-200 BC and became widespread during the period considered as "Classical Hinduism" 200 BC - 1100 AD.[3]"

Regardless, your claim was that if you've got 10 minutes to explain Hinduism, you should explain about karma and that would be sufficient. I disagree with this. While it is certainly an important concept, I do not think that it a big part of Hinduism. Further, I do not think Vedas gave as much significance importance to the concept of karma as to other stuff like how to do hawans etc. The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas
[/quote]
I won't debate your disagreement but that's your choice. You can choose to explain Hinduism the way that you think is appropriate for your audience. On the other hand, my take on the purpose of a religion or a way of life is simple (I won't even need 10 minutes to explain that. I will be done by the time the train leaves the Madison Square station:emwink:). Imparting accountability in the believers. Lack of accountability would have made a society full of guilt free crimes. People would have been looting, torturing and murdering others. Religons spread the notion that people are accountable and responsible for their actions. Every religion has it's own way of imparting accountability. In Hinduism, this accountability comes with the concept of Karma. In that respect I believe Karma is at the top of Hindu value system. http://hindudharma.wikidot.com/karma

The rest of the rituals, Ramayana, Mahabharat, moral stories etc are centered around suggestions for one's conduct in the society which will ultimately influence one's Karma. Of all the things Hinduism, Karma is the one that directly influences your 'way of life'.

That Karma was mentioned in Gita is sufficient for me to believe it is the key aspect of Hinduism.


Excellent links that talk about origins of Karma with references to Vedas, Upanishads etc:

http://www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda1.htm

http://www.haryana-online.com/Culture/karma.htm

[Bobus]

Bobus,

I am NOT that learned. Also, My life, as a Hindu, has never been dictated by what is written in age old scriptures or obscure stories in a mythological story. More than 99% of all those Hindus, both educated and uneducated, that I have known have ever mentioned that their lives were dictated by these things either. I have been given finite time on this planet and I am not in the business to search for all the idiosyncrasies everywhere. I may remember that even my mother may have said things or done things that didn't make sense some times but I will remember that I benefited overall from her and I am thankful for that. This is an analogiy, lest somebody might feel irritated why I am mentioning my mother here.

Even if you take Science and study all recorded and published literature, in every field, you will find untenable stances and absurd statements. Those things don't make Science itself any less important or any less pertinent to modern science. If you study the history of medicine, the things that were claimed just a century ago or even half century ago now sound laughable, absurd and stupid. Does that put the whole science medicine as inapplicable to the current time?. Yes, pointing those funny things will be tidbits and serve some amusement. And by the same token nobody blames the science of medicine (the faculty of) as having created a major boo-boo. These boo-boos were contributed by members of the faculty just like those you all point out of literature in Hinduism. So?

I enjoyed responding to a few inquiries but I do not intend to spend my waking time on just these doubts. Thanks for the fun I had.

Cheers!.[/quote]

Looks like the above valedictory speech was made because Chandokya Upanishad was a bit too much. Until then it was okay. Now the scriptures have become esoteric. :)

Now the debate has been shifted above from what Hindu scriptures say to what people read and follow. When the scriptures are defensible, the generals make it the defence line, when it is shown to have cracks, that line is abandoned. Is Hinduism what the scriptures say or what people that are called Hindus practice in their daily lives? Usually Hinduism defenders say the scriptures are pure Amrit, and that it is the followers who are imperfect. :)

The intellectually honest person will acknowledge that Hindu scriptures support the caste (please spare me the varna crap) system.

Science is ruthless in self-examination and discarding what is not valid or reasonable. So the comparison with Science simply does not make sense - it is a story of contrast, not of comparison.

Being grateful or thankful to imperfect people who have helped one is fine. Not even being able to acknowledge the bath water in an inanimate thingie like religion is a different issue.

[Dutyful]

Looks like the above valedictory speech was made because Chandokya Upanishad was a bit too much. Until then it was okay. Now the scriptures have become esoteric. :)

First, you asked me to provide translation which I am NOT interested in doing so after doing that a couple of times and realizing that this is endless. As I said, I have finite time and I don't intend this my full time vocation. Any problem?

Now the debate has been shifted above from what Hindu scriptures say to what people read and follow. When the scriptures are defensible, the generals make it the defence line, when it is shown to have cracks, that line is abandoned. Is Hinduism what the scriptures say or what people that are called Hindus practice in their daily lives? Usually Hinduism defenders say the scriptures are pure Amrit, and that it is the followers who are imperfect. :)

No, the debate has been shifted by you and not me. You asked me to provide translation and that is NOT the focus of this discussion. You should have stated the relevance of the shloka you posted to our discussion and ask me for an opinion. You keep posting "interpretations" and keep calling them translations. Translations are like what I provided you - of each word and then full translation. Interpretation comes at the end and by definition interpretation is wholly subjective. Please don't claim interpretation as the original meaning. That would qualify as crap.

I am only guessing that you are fixated on the word "Chandala". You are implying that the word chandala as a specific caste (probably dalit) and thus claim that the scriptures created and encouraged and even decreed their practice. Meaning of word(s) change with place and time and even context. You will not accept this fact but call it a cop-out. Still, that doesn't change the fact. For your information, Hinduism has always considered all creatures worthy of respect and compassion. Unlike other religion(s) it considered animals to have intelligence and are capable of evolving into humans and higher. Hinduism is probably the only "religion" to call for peace in the plant world , peace in the animal world, peace in the planet, and peace in the space which shows you how incredibly evolved that way of life is. If you don't understand the relevance of this to our discussion then it is futile to expound on this. I have no divine revelation of the exact meaning of Chandala but taking cues from other references to this word, like the writings of a Chinese Buddhist who visited India in the 4th century AD:
According to Fa Hien, a Chinese Buddhist pilgrim who visited India in the early 4th century AD said Throughout the country the people kill no living thing nor drink wine, nor do they eat garlic or onion, with the exception of Chandalas only. The Chandalas are named 'evil men' and dwell apart from others; if they enter a town or market, they sound a piece of wood in order to separate themselves; then, men knowing they are, avoid coming in contact with them. In this country they do not keep swine nor fowls, and do not deal in cable; they have no shambles or wine shops in their market-places. In selling they use cowrie shells. The Chandalas only hunt and sell flesh. Thus indicating even by then they have been segregated from the mainstream society as untouchables. (ref: Wilkipedia).

So, the shloka from Chandogya upanishad you posted says that evil conduct by a human will result in his taking a rebirth as an animal and Chandala is included because his conduct is closer to animal behavior than of humans of that time in history. And that time was even earlier than the Classical Greek period. And even earlier than the Romans. There is no equivalent to the ancient Vedic civilization (ancient Hindus) to compare to. It is amazing that the philosophies narrated in these Veda, and Upanishads, and epics reflect such high intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom. Don't interpret the terminology used in these scriptures with the usage and meanings of contemporary or even recent history of Indian society.


The intellectually honest person will acknowledge that Hindu scriptures support the caste (please spare me the varna crap) system.

So, you have decided so and that is the eternal truth and the law of the land. It is sheer arrogance on your part to issue such an absolute decree. You must have enough realization that It is ONLY your opinion. It is even more galling on your part to decree Varna as crap. And it is even worse that you decree what an intellectually honest person must do. And you consider yourself worthy enough to challenge the Veda, Upanishads, and Bhagavadgita ?. I am amazed by your Chutzpah.

Science is ruthless in self-examination and discarding what is not valid or reasonable. So the comparison with Science simply does not make sense - it is a story of contrast, not of comparison.

Science is NOT an institution but is a study advanced by various people at various times just like Hinduism is. At any given time, there are multiple claims to what the truth is, meaning there is no absolute truth that is universally claimed as without exception. Even universally accepted phenomenon such as Gravity has exceptions. There are competing claims and it takes loooong periods of time to come to a more accepted conclusion. Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom and wisdom is obtained by the application of two and one wisdom is to realize that truth is a derivative some times.

One sign of immaturity is the penchant to make absolute statements.


Being grateful or thankful to imperfect people who have helped one is fine. Not even being able to acknowledge the bath water in an inanimate thingie like religion is a different issue.

Perhaps these following observations will induce you to approach knowledge and wisdom with humility:

Self-realisation alone can dispel ignorance and bestow immortality, eternal bliss, and everlasting peace. Knowledge of Brahman alone can remove all sorrows, delusion and pain.

The Upanishads are rightly called the Vedanta, the end of the Vedas, that which is reserved for those who have freed themselves from the bonds of formal religion.

The Upanishads are not meant for the masses, as they contain the highest speculations of philosophy. They are meant only for the select few, who are fit and worthy to receive the instructions. Hence the term 'Upanishad' signified at first 'secret teaching' or 'secret doctrine'. As already stated, Sadhana-Chatushtaya (the fourfold means) is the primary qualification of an aspirant of Jnana-Yoga, or one who seeks the knowledge of the Upanishads.

[Dutyful]

Why don't we take a poll here. The poll asks only the Hindus to vote and they can say whether they believe in (not whether it exists) caste system or not. That will decide what Hindus believe in as far as this forum is concerned.
________________________________________________________
I thought I was indecisive but I am not so sure any more.

The question here or the argument here is not whether Hindus believe in caste system but the argument is:

Hinduism is to be blamed (responsible) for the creation (and hence the practice of it as it is perceived now) of caste system. Further more, scriptures actually are a proof.

Nobody, including me, has claimed that there is no caste system in the Hindu society. I and some other contend that, caste system - as practiced in the contemporary society, is a social practice and not decreed by the "religion".

[Bobus]

Dutyful:

It is not my position that Hinduism created the caste system. My position is that it supports it. The caste system served the interests of the ruling elites, and religion is merely an ideological system devised by the ruling elities that is used to serve that interest by supporting institutions like the caste system that serve these interests. Religion does not drop from heaven even though a lot of it is worse than droppings.:)

Regarding your interpretation of Chandala, thanks. Just that the verse that I posted also talks of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas - so it is difficult to digest that suddenly Chandala alone was used with a different intention.

I dont view the rest of your post as substantive enough to merit a response.

[Desi]

Now the debate has been shifted above from what Hindu scriptures say to what people read and follow. [/quote]
Looks like we are coming back to "Practices".

[layman]

[quote]
It is even more galling on your part to decree Varna as crap. [/quote]
Dutyful,

Just curious! Do you think the varna system should be followed? Do you follow it?

[boca]

The question here or the argument here is not whether Hindus believe in caste system but the argument is:

Hinduism is to be blamed (responsible) for the creation (and hence the practice of it as it is perceived now) of caste system. Further more, scriptures actually are a proof.

Nobody, including me, has claimed that there is no caste system in the Hindu society. I and some other contend that, caste system - as practiced in the contemporary society, is a social practice and not decreed by the "religion".[/quote]
I am reminded of the term "sacrilege".

If a society or a social practice goes against the general tenets of that society's religion, such practice could be deemed a "sacrilege" by the religious. Caste system is definitely not the case of "freedom of expression".

The practitioners, not just the section of the society that was affected, of that religion would jump in unison and protest such "sacrilege".

The lack of public opprobrium over its (the religion's) period of existence would indicate that such practice is not deemed contrary to the tenets of that religion.

[Dutyful]

Dutyful,

Just curious! Do you think the varna system should be followed? Do you follow it?

Layman,

If you understand what Varnas are: they are descriptions and a classification system like in biology - Vertebrates, Non-Vertebrates, Avian, Marine, etc.. then you wouldn't ask this question. It is like saying clergy (not a perfect synonym for Brahmana), Nobility (again not the best synonym for kshatriya), Merchant class (closest and acceptable synonym for Vysyas) and Working class (closest and acceptable synonym for Shudras). What is there to follow? You mean imposing it on the society? To what end?
By the way, I am not enamored of Varnas as divine.