NationStates Jolt Archive

The reason for the quotes is because, Hinduism is not a religion like Abrahamic religions are. It is actually a collection of religions/belief systems/philosophies which are both complementary and contradictory.

The origin of the name hinduism is itself interesting. Historically, the land east of the Sind river (refered as Indus river because the Greeks called it as such), was called India, although it is not a name that can be found in any native language of India. We used to call our land as Aryavartha or Bharatvarsh. Bharat is still used interchangeably with India. The Indus river itself now flows through Pakistan, but that's another matter.

The Arabs and Persians referred to the land of India as Hind (Arabs can't pronounce Sind , the river is actually Sind river) and we were referred as Hindus by them. Non-anglicized Arabs still refer India as Hind. And then came the colonial era and the British needed to have a name to refer to our religion. Since they never bothered to go into the details, they lumped all these belief systems together and called it Hinduism. Religion of Hindus -> Hinduism! Ofcourse, the natives were in no position to protest and also they never cared for labels anyway and the name stuck. I actually prefer using the term "Sanatana Dharma" - eternal dharma, but it is long and at this stage nothing would change the prevalency of the term Hinduism, so I am sticking with the latter term.

In Hinduism, there are three major sects which infact have big and irreconcilable differences between them, that they are actually religions in their own right. A brief description of the major ones..

1. Vaishnavism - Vishnu as the supreme Godhead and from this Godhead came forth all other demigods including Brahma and Shiva. 65% to 70% hindus are Vaishnavites.

2. Shaivism - Shiva as the supreme Godhead. Less than 10% of hindus, mostly Kashmiri saivites and in the peninsular state of Tamil Nadu. Saivites and Vaishnavites are always at loggerheads and as you can now tell, they are not of the same religion, but they do get lumped into the name Hinduism. The Jews/Christians and Muslims share the same God but are different religions, but Vaishnavism and Shaivism hold different Gods as Supreme, but they are under the same religion. Funny, ain't it?

3. Advaita - Belief in a supreme soul without a personality called Brahman. Advaitins hold that everything is an illusion/maya and since they deny the personality of both Shiva and Vishnu, they are at logger heads with both Shaivites and Vaishnavites. 10% to 15% are of differing grades of Advaita - Kevala Advaita, Dvaita, neo-Advaita etc.

And then there are the Jains who hold Balarama (another avatar of Vishnu) as the supreme personality, people who worship Ganesh and Karthik (sons of Shiva - one up on Christianity which has only one son of God) and then the people who worship village deities, family deities, ancestors, nature worshippers and what not.

Hinduism is kinda a catch all word for all the above. So much so that some think that all you have to do to be a hindu, is simply to call yourself one and you become a hindu! Hinduism has become sortof "anything goes" religion.

Well actually there is solid theology behind the major sects/philosophies I described above. I would be explaining the Vaishnava philosophy now and other theologies, maybe later. Lord have mercy on me and forgive me for any mistakes that I make.

We are not our material bodies. This is a very fundamental concept. I am not this body. I = an embodied soul which is eternal, indivisible, invisible, immutable and indestructable.

Bhagvad Gita (hereafter referred as BG) says in Chapter 2. TEXT 17
Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul.

and in
Chapter 2. TEXT 20
For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

This soul of ours is defined as one smallest unit of consciousness. It is qualitatively the same as the Supreme, but quantitatively, it is an infinitesmally small part of the Supreme. The minute particle soul is called anu-atma (anu=atom, atma=soul) and the Supersoul is known as the vibhu-atma.

From the Purport given to the above verse by Sri.A.C.Bhativedanda Swami Prabupad, we can know more about the nature of the soul.

Qualitatively, the small atomic fragmental part of the Supreme Spirit is one with the Supreme. He undergoes no changes like the body. Sometimes the soul is called the steady, or kutastha. The body is subject to six kinds of transformations. It takes its birth in the womb of the mother's body, remains for some time, grows, produces some effects, gradually dwindles, and at last vanishes into oblivion. The soul, however, does not go through such changes. The soul is not born, but, because he takes on a material body, the body takes its birth. The soul does not take birth there, and the soul does not die. Anything which has birth also has death. And because the soul has no birth, he therefore has no past, present or future. He is eternal, ever-existing, and primeval--that is, there is no trace in history of his coming into being. Under the impression of the body, we seek the history of birth, etc., of the soul. The soul does not at any time become old, as the body does. The so-called old man, therefore, feels himself to be in the same spirit as in his childhood or youth. The changes of the body do not affect the soul. The soul does not deteriorate like a tree, nor anything material. The soul has no by-product either. The by-products of the body, namely children, are also different individual souls; and, owing to the body, they appear as children of a particular man. The body develops because of the soul's presence, but the soul has neither offshoots nor change. Therefore, the soul is free from the six changes of the body.

and

The soul is full of knowledge, or full always with consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is the symptom of the soul. Even if one does not find the soul within the heart, where he is situated, one can still understand the presence of the soul simply by the presence of consciousness. Sometimes we do not find the sun in the sky owing to clouds, or for some other reason, but the light of the sun is always there, and we are convinced that it is therefore daytime. As soon as there is a little light in the sky early in the morning, we can understand that the sun is in the sky. Similarly, since there is some consciousness in all bodies--whether man or animal--we can understand the presence of the soul. This consciousness of the soul is, however, different from the consciousness of the Supreme because the supreme consciousness is all-knowledge--past, present and future. Both the Supersoul [Paramatma] and the atomic soul [jivatma] are situated on the same tree of the body within the same heart of the living being, and only one who has become free from all material desires as well as lamentations can, by the grace of the Supreme, understand the glories of the soul.

The Vaishnava philosophy is that this individual soul and the Supreme is simulataneouly one and different. This is called the "achintya-bedha-abedha" philosophy meaning "the inconceivable mystery of simultaneous oneness and difference". This is an axiom and this is admittedly inconceivable for the ordinary mind. This is something that can only be experienced, not explained. This is probably the only axiom in the Vaishnava philosophy and everything else falls in place. There is a similar idea in Islam called "the mystery of ahadiyyat in wahdaniyyat".

So this soul of ours is an infinitesmally small part of the infinite Supreme Godhead, engaged in loving devotion of the infinite. But due to the forgetful nature of the individual soul, it thinks that it is Godhead and not an infinitesmal part of the infinite Godhead. But the Supreme Godhead, being the enjoyer of the soul's devotion, always gives what the soul desires. So He created the material world by His external energy, through a veil of illusion called Maya, for us souls to play God.

The Material world and the spiritual world (well everything) is a manifestation of the Supreme Godhead's energy (My understanding is that if matter -> energy, then energy -> matter). When one understands this, it really does not matter how exactly the world came about or how exactly I got this body of mine.

Science says my body evolved from apes. No problems.

Science says the world was created 2 billion years ago and life was on earth 1 billion years ago (please don't nitpick on the timelines). No problems.

Science tomorrow proves conclusively that origin of life is abiogenesis. No problems.

Since the one second of the creator (Brahma) = 100,000 human years, I do not have problems in accepting evolution as the origin of species and abiogenesis as origin of life. I still marvel at the mercy of the Lord.

It really does not matter to me how I got this body of mine. I am more interested in how I get out of this body and regain my original position, which is to be one with the Supreme.

The Hindu time scale is explained here.
ONE COSMIC DAY OF CREATOR BRAHMA (http://www.indiaheritage.com/rendez/article1.htm)

I think now would be a good time to explain Karma and reincarnation.

So just how a soul enters a body during birth and leaves the body upon death, it can enter another body. This is called reincarnation.

The BG Chapter 12 Text 13 says
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

What body does the soul takes in what circumstances is decided by Karma. Karma is one of the most basic doctrines of Hinduism and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of Karma is essential for any degree of Spiritual advancement.

The word karma means 'action' and refers to the entire cycle of action and its consequences. It is like the spiritual version of Newton's third law. (Actually Newton's law is the material version of Karmic laws) Every action in addition to its physical goal produces a moral consequence which manifests as either joy or sorrow. Even the smallest thought or act has consequences which are not settled with death.

So you die as an unrealised soul. Should you not accept the consequences of what you have done in the life that you just lived? For that you take birth again. For ex, if you have killed an animal for food when it posed no danger to you, it is said that you will take the birth as the animal to expend the bad karma that you incurred.

Karma as the law of spiritual dynamics makes us self-reliant beings with the realization that we can never escape responsibility. We can never plead ignorance of the law nor take the attitude - this time it won't matter. In fact the effect is inherent in the cause and therefore the two are in fact one continuum. In the inviolability of the law lies our potential freedom. It enables us to modify, change and remold our character which is the result of our past lives and to create our future character in greater perfection - improving on our mistakes from the past knowing that not one single iota of effort goes to waste.

Predestination Karma is often misunderstood as a synonym for destiny or fate or even luck. Karma is neither of these, it is a cosmic law which negates any possibility of luck, good fortune, or chance. Behind every fortuitous opportunity or apparent stroke of luck lies the energy which we ourselves have generated. Likewise behind every loss and misfortune lies the negative energy which we ourselves have created. We are powerless to change what actually happens to us but we have complete freedom to determine how we will deal with each and every situation that arise and turn it to benefit or harm. Predestination, fate or destiny implies that there is an external force which is imposing its own agenda onto us. Karma is the law whereby we create and experience our own agendas. We have the power to visualize, plan, work for and achieve our own certain future.

Dynamics of Karma

The actual working out of the law of Karma is extremely complex including millions of fine permutations and tunings affecting the lives of all of those around us and everyone that we have ever known. All these dynamics are controlled by the Devas (Cosmic Forces) of Karma. But there are certain basic principles which we need to understand. We are all acting on three different realms; physical, emotional and mental with energies appropriate to each realm. These energies are known as:

kriya shakti - physical realm; physical actions determine our physical environment.

iccha shakti - emotional realm; our emotional life revolves around our family, friends and associates and determines our interaction with them, and

jñana shakti - mental realm; our world of thoughts, goals and aspirations which determine how we interact with the world around us and ultimately understand ourselves.All these three energies together make up our character.

Sin and Virtue

No action can be said to be neutral; every word, deed or thought has an effect. Our thoughts affect us directly while our speech and physical actions affect our environment. Although the concept of sin (papa) is linked to Karma one must understand that the Vedic concept of sin is quite different to the Christian concept. Sin is defined in the Mahabharata as follows;

Virtue is that which benefits other beings; sin is that which causes pain to others.

The entire moral theology of Hinduism rests upon the concept of "benefit of all beings" (sarva-bhuta-hita). Motivation or intention is the deciding factor of the moral nature of an action. Motivation which centers on the welfare of others is of the nature of goodness and purity whereas motivation which centers upon the individual and his needs is negative and leads to suffering and bondage to the cycle of births and deaths.

Sin is an un-skilled use of action, a lack of spiritual understanding which causes one to transgress the Cosmic Laws (Rita). And the means of sinning are the mind, the speech and actions. The unskillful use of thought is manifest in thinking harmful thoughts directed towards others and clinging to irrational and erroneous doctrines. The unskillful use of speech is detected in lying, slandering, gossiping, and abusing others and giving false teachings. The unskillful use of action is causing physical injury to other living beings, and not rendering assistance in time of need. All well-directed virtuous actions leads to spiritual development and happiness, all unskillful actions slow spiritual growth and produce unhappiness.

Types of Karma There are three types of Karma including both negative and positive;

§ 1. Sanchita Karma; the accumulated results of acts which have been committed in the past lives and are waiting to come to fruition in the future.

§ 2. Prarabdha Karma; acts done in the past which have resulted in the circumstances of the present incarnation and are causing all the joys and sorrows which we are now experiencing.

§ 3 Kriyamana Karma; All the actions which are now being performed; the results of which will be experienced at a later date and will condition the circumstances of the next incarnation.

Prarabdha karma is beyond the control of the individual and the results which have produced our present conditions have to be born with patience. It is like the seed which has been planted in the past and is now flowering.

Sanchita karma is like seed which has been stored and can be remitted through the Grace of the Guru or God.

The kriyamana karma or the present actions are entirely under the control of the individual and must be performed with the utmost awareness that each individual is the author of his/her own destiny and each and every action, no matter how trivial will have an effect, unless all actions and their consequences are surrendered unto God, (karma phala tyaga). Once surrendered, all actions are purified and everything is done as service to God alone and thus even mundane actions become the vehicle of Liberation.

Now we can come to the topic of suffering. It is a topic that bewilders us conditioned souls. How can a merciful God be cruel as to create suffering and if God did not create suffering, then God is not omnipotent. This is one of the oft repeated arguments against God/spirituality/religions. Let me try to explain it.

Suffering

The doctrine of karma explains the universal experience and problem of suffering. There are two factors in suffering;

a ) the person who is suffering

b ) an agent of suffering such as a person, thing, condition etc.,

First off, since I am not this material body, material sufferings are not real sufferings. Yes, sensory pain is unbearable but it does not cause any damage to my soul which is my real self. Once we have understood the nature of the self as it really is and understood the dynamic of actions and their consequences, then the agent of suffering becomes incidental and secondary. Since everything that I experience is a result of my actions, how can I blame it on God? In fact I cannot even blame the agent who causes me this suffering. Once we understand this, we no longer bear any anger or resentment towards the person or thing that is seen to be causing the suffering because they are merely agents of our own karma.

It is on this basis and this basis alone that we can truly love our "enemy" and return love for hurt, compassion for thoughtlessness. When the experience of suffering is thus understood it becomes an opportunity for self-development and spiritual transformation and its intensity is greatly diminished. The suffering and happiness of each being is in exact proportion to its deeds. And even suffering is meant to correct and rehabilitate the one suffering. Suffering is the source of great lessons and the vehicle of greater understanding and insight if used with awareness and insight into the law of Karma.

So when thousands die or suffer due to the Katrina hurricane, it does not mean that God is unjust or that God does not exist. It just means that their karma caught up with them. Now, this may seem very callous of me to blame their suffering as their own doing, but actually it is not. It is really their karma and I am not callous in stating so. I would be callous if I was in a position to help and I did nothing. Needless to say, I would be incurring bad karma for my callousness and this would play out later in my own life. So please stop blaming God for our suffering, which are a natural consequence of our presence in this material world, which was caused by our own desire to be here in this material world, instead of being in oneness with the Supreme.
When we experience sensory pleasure, we forget about God, but when we experience sensory suffering, we blame God , when in fact both are a consequence of our karma and both should be treated equally with detachment.

So what is the end for all this?

Full realisation of self and attain oneness with Godhead. Nothing else is permanent. You may get into heavenly spiritual worlds due to your karma, but without full realisation you are bound to fall back to the material world after you have spent your karma. I guess the semitic faiths aim at this intermediate steps. You believe this dogma and you follow these rules and you do these deeds, you will get to heaven. They don't talk about what happens next. No exit strategy!

So how to attain this realisation?

Well, there are many methods since obviously, although the absolute truth is one, the ways to attain it are many. It actually depends on the nature of the person. The practice is called Yoga. Yoga means to yoke -to unite. There are many types of yoga. Jnana Yoga (Jnana = knowledge) - I guess Krishnamurthy is a good example of this. Kriya Yoga - An ancient method which was spread to the world by Swami Yogananda, who started the self-realisation foundation (http://www.yogananda-srf.org/) in the US, Raja Yoga (http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/teachings/rajayoga.htm) and Bhakthi Yoga (Bhakthi = devotion).

Vast majority of Hindus are into Bhakthi yoga, which is nothing but surrendering your soul to the Supreme and being engaged in devotional service to the Supreme. In this, it is the devotion that counts, not the mode of worship. This is why Hindus worhip idols and treat idols as Gods. For others the stone is not God, but for the loving devotee, God is in the stone. There is a whole chapter in the BG devoted to devotional service where Krishna explains how one can attain Him.

I think I have explained enough for one post. I now invite questions, but please read through the post before asking. I would answer to the best of my abilities. Thanks.

I hope the concepts explained in the post addresses the specific questions raised in another thread that is there is a place of spiritual isolation and are we spiritually isolated and if so why.

Uh...wow. That is really long. I'm pretty sure that I already know most of it (since I scanned the headers) but I will come back and read this later. Good post. :)

Yes! Finally, hopefully, a decent thread devoted to some religion other than Christianity! ^__^

I have one big question to ask though (which'll probably be followed up by several smaller ones). What leads you to believe that the Human Soul is any more indivisible than the Supreme?

It seems as though on one hand, you're saying that a soul is an individual, unique and quasi-physical object, while on the other, you're saying that another soul is a result of a congregation of several smaller things. Isn't that in some way contradictory as to the nature of what Soul actually is?

I have one big question to ask though (which'll probably be followed up by several smaller ones). What leads you to believe that the Human Soul is any more indivisible than the Supreme?

It seems as though on one hand, you're saying that a soul is an individual, unique and quasi-physical object, while on the other, you're saying that another soul is a result of a congregation of several smaller things. Isn't that in some way contradictory as to the nature of what Soul actually is?

A soul is a unit of consciousness. It is not a quasi-physical object. This allows the soul to transmigrate from body to body without itself getting changed.

Reg, your larger question, you have to read more about the "achintya-bedha-abedha" philosophy to understand it more clearly. There is a reason why it is called the "inconceivable mystery of simultaneous oneness and difference". :)

The Supreme Godhead is not a congregation of smaller things.

I forgot to add this disclaimer,

Please understand that I am merely a student (and a bad student at that) of my religion. The reason why I started this thread is to give a proper representation of my religion with the hope that this would induce you to read more literature and get to know the philosophies from bonafide resources.

Hinduism is not what is shown in Indiana Jones -Temple of Doom. :D nor it is the stupidly simplistic trinity concept of Brahma-Creator, Vishnu-Protecter and Shiva-Destroyer nonsense spread by colonial British pseudo-scholars. There is much more to Hinduism than that.

This is interesting. I learned something already before the first
set of quotes. I will come back again to this later, hopefully.

I did not know of the British basically sweeping the religions
of most everyone of the "Indian subcontinent" under one
rug and calling them Hindu.

thanx

How can we stop the public misconception that cows are worshipped?

You do accuse western scholars of a bit more than they actually do: Jainism at least is considered a separate religion, just as Sikhism and Buddhism are.

Here's a question: what power does the soul have over the actions of the body? To what extent does it have control?

I just finished an extremely interesting old book called "Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies' by an Abbe Dubois.

Let us discuss... the pancha gavia ;)

My best friend was once Hindu. Years of exposure to US culture, however, has turned him into an uncommitted deist. Is this a common occurrence amongst Hindus who live outside of India? I asked my friend once, but he didn’t know, not having extensive contact with other Hindus but more than twice a month when he goes/went to temple (I think that‘s what its called). If it adds perspective, I also know someone who’s parents are Indian, but he was born in Chicago. He is almost completely unconcerned with religion, and his parents are not Hindu. Though, I never thought to ask what they were.

You go man!!

Let us be homies yo because I am Hindu too!!...Yeah Ill stop the whole ghetto speaking thing.

But anyways nice post, you told me some stuff which I didnt know myself!

Another question for the collective Hindu thread: Does Hinduism have an equivalent to Satanism? If not, where does the rebellion go?

Very, very interesting thread! Thank you! :)

Another question for the collective Hindu thread: Does Hinduism have an equivalent to Satanism? If not, where does the rebellion go?


As far as I know [being a modestly religious Hindu] is that the "rebellion", or rather his soul, suffers incarnation as a lower form of animal, and does not gain lateral movement towards 'Moksha'.

However, my interpretation of the religion is largely based on my [ISCKON - Prabhupada] collective exposure, and hence open to interpretaion.

Hinduism is an ever-expanding religion with respect to the philosophies and ideas it generates. It can't be defined otherwise. Almost every religious idea can be found in Hinduism, if we look beyond the prophets and angels. Even atheism is expounded upon by some hindu philosophical texts.

But, like any other religion, it is also prone to be exploited by perverted megalomaniacs and used as a tool to carry out murder and mayhem like the Gujarat riots (and the 1984 Delhi riots, etc) have so chillingly proven.

What is so great about religion anyway, if you don't believe in life after death? What is so great about it, if you accept yourself as a mere mortal and are perfectly satisfied with your human strengths and weaknesses, instead of clamouring after super-natural help from some supposedly divine being? I believe that ethics have greater power if they are secular ethics.

Sel Appa
How can we stop the public misconception that cows are worshipped?

We can't. :D It is probably set forever. The phrase "Holy Cow" will live on.

Cows are respected - them being surrogate mothers and the backbone of the agricultural economy and all. This is often mistaken as worship. (Although some do worship cows, as in worshipping life and life giver)


Vegas-Rex
You do accuse western scholars of a bit more than they actually do

Not western scholars per se , but the scholars who were in the pay of colonial British administration. Like Max Mueller etc.

Jainism at least is considered a separate religion, just as Sikhism and Buddhism are.

Depends on how you define Hinduism.

The Supreme Court of India passed a recent judgement that Jains should not be treated as minorities. (http://esamskriti.com/html/inside.asp?cat=740&subcat=739&cname=sc_judgment_jains_not_minority)

Some highlights from the judgement

# The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing the Constitution unlike Muslims, Christians. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies.
# The word 'Hindu' conveys the image of diverse groups of communities living in India Thus, 'Hinduism' can be called a general religion and common faith of India whereas 'Jainism' is a special religion formed on the basis of quintessence of Hindu religion.
# Commissions set up for minorities have to direct their activities to maintain integrity and unity of India by gradually eliminating the minority and majority classes.
# In a caste-ridden Indian society, no section or distinct group of people can claim to be in majority. All are minorities amongst Hindus.

So Jains are Hindus, but Jainism is a seperate religion. Jains constitute probably less than 1% of Indians. If we consider Jains as a seperate religion, then we have to consider that Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Advaita are seperate religions too, since they too have big differences between them. They do not have the same view of Godhead and the all important question of what is liberation etc.

Vaishnavists worship Vishnu and hold him as Supreme from whom everything came, including Shiva. Shaivites say it is Shiva from whom everything came. Advaitins say Vishnu and Shiva are illusions and part of the maya of the impersonal Supreme soul. Just because the believers of these three major sects and other sects/belief systems etc, don't fight among themselves and bomb places of worship, it does not mean that they actually like having a common label of Hinduism.

I guess, within India, people don't care for the labels. I "converted" from Advaita to Vaishnavism without nobody knowing it. Only outside India, the labels take importance.

For ex, ISKCON (the Hare Krishna movement) has said more than once that it is not a Hindu organization, but they are probably the most Hindu organization around. They follow the vedas and the Gita strictly including vedic style dress.

So is ISKCON hindu? both yes and no. It depends on what you mean by the word hindu and hinduism.

Your other questions

what power does the soul have over the actions of the body? To what extent does it have control?

The soul is housed in the body. As long it is housed, it has full control over the actions of the body. If you meant to ask, if we have free will or not, the answer is, yes, we do have free will. However, we have to face the consequences too of our free will.

Does Hinduism have an equivalent to Satanism? If not, where does the rebellion go?

Since there is no Satan concept, there are no satanists amongst Hindus.

Rebels mostly stop at atheism or agnosticism and tend to be more towards challenging the social order of casteism and ritualism etc instead of forming cults like satanism as in the west.


New Granada
Let us discuss... the pancha gavia

LOL. Less than 1% are into such stuff and it is now a Hindu custom.

Undelia
Is this a common occurrence amongst Hindus who live outside of India?

Yes and no. Young hindus tend to be atheistic and agnostic. Not just in the US and west, but even in India, where materialism and consumerism is on the rise.

But there is a revival nowadays, probably because after a certain point, money does not matter and those nagging questions of Who am I?, what am I doing here? what is the purpose of life? come back and spirituality blossoms again. That's what happened to me.

Shingogogol, Ubershizasianaxis, Eutrusca

Most welcome. :)

[B]
Just because the believers of these three major sects and other sects/belief systems etc, don't fight among themselves and bomb places of worship, it does not mean that they actually like having a common label of Hinduism.


Weren't there violent clashes between Vaishnavite and Shaivite sectarians in the medieval ages in India (mostly South India)? There was quite a bit of animosity between these sects even until the last century.

Weren't there violent clashes between Vaishnavite and Shaivite sectarians in the medieval ages in India (mostly South India)? There was quite a bit of animosity between these sects even until the last century.

Well, I am from South India and I am history buff. There were no violent clashes between the sects per se. There were violent clashes between the kings who belonged to one or other sect. For ex, the Chola kings were Shaivites who warred with the Buddhist kings of Sri Lanka, but it was not to impose Shaivism but to impose the authority if the Cholas. Likewise, the Jainist Pallavas warred with the Vaishnavist Chalukyas but it was as revenge for the Chalukyas sacking the Pallava capital of Kanchipuram. The kings had religious advisors, so it may look sectarian, but it is not.

For two sects to clash, they need to have some sort of centralisation. This can never be possible in the Hindu religion, since there is no central figure who has the authority to call for a war or something. Hinduism and its sects are very decentralised for them to organize and mobilize. Reason why India failed to withstand the Islamic onslaught. Other Kings in the interior did not come to the defense of the frontier states and it took 6 centuries and a revival in Maharashtra by Shivaji and the birth of Sikhism in Punjab to reverse the Islamic conquest.

Very informative read!

Since nobody has asked it yet, I will ....

What does Hinduism teach concerning people of other faiths?

What does Hinduism teach concerning people of other faiths?

Nothing.

Since Hinduism is the oldest faith and there were no other faiths around at that time, it does not say anything about other faiths. The vedas - the primary source - are held to be spoken by the seers at the beginning of time. Naturally, they don't have any reference to other religions. The Bhagvad Gita - the most important book - is held to be spoken 5000 years ago, so there is no reference there either. Even Buddhism and Jainism were founded circa 500 B.C and have no reference to other faiths. They were basically reform movements of Hinduism which later became seperate religions. Only Sikhism has references to other faiths.

Within Hinduism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Advaita have no reference to other faiths. The way these sects work itself is different. There are the books - puranas(epics), vedas, Upanishads(treatises) and commentaries etc by various spiritual leaders. People read them and understand what they could and choose what to believe and what to do. Based on their beliefs, they become Vaishnavist or Shaivist or Advaitin etc. Those who don't read, simply follow their caste/community and family traditions. Generally speaking, Hinduism is a very personal and configurable faith.

But certain modern day organizations have attempted to syncretise many views. The Neo-advaita school formed by Sri Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda believe in syncretism. They state explicitly that there are several ways to attain the absolute and one need not be better than the other. Vivekananda, a famous monk of the neo-advaita school, said that he does not want others to become hindus, but rather the muslim to become a better muslim and the christian to become a better christian, since all religions lead to the same God.

As a child, I thought that muslims are just like hindus and Allah is just another God like Vishnu or Shiva. The implication of "La illah il allah Muhammed un rasool ullah" was understood much later. :D

Very informative post. Take that history class!

I never liked the whole caste thing in Hinduism (I am an anarchist, afterall).

... The kings had religious advisors, so it may look sectarian, but it is not.

For two sects to clash, they need to have some sort of centralisation. This can never be possible in the Hindu religion, since there is no central figure who has the authority to call for a war or something. Hinduism and its sects are very decentralised for them to organize and mobilize. Reason why India failed to withstand the Islamic onslaught. Other Kings in the interior did not come to the defense of the frontier states and it took 6 centuries and a revival in Maharashtra by Shivaji and the birth of Sikhism in Punjab to reverse the Islamic conquest.

You are contradicting yourself.

What could be more centralised than a theist monarchy? The Kshatriyas (kings and warriors) were guided by the Brahmins (priests and scholars) in most decisions of war and peace. The hindu society is structured with the caste system acting as the foundation which provided the basis for centralisation. Ofcourse the centralisation was not enough in the face of extra-subcontinental invasions by the Turks, Persians and Europeans. Hinduism was mucked up in a confusing morass of superstitions and an anachronistic social framework built upon the debilitating caste system.

Hindu kingdoms were relatively weak because of such social decadence as well as political fragmentation brought about by the petty squabbles among the numerous kings who ruled the Indian subcontinent and mired it in a constant state of war.

I never liked the whole caste thing in Hinduism (I am an anarchist, afterall).

Well, you should not like caste thing and you don't have to have a caste to be a hindu.

Expera

What could be more centralised than a theist monarchy? The Kshatriyas (kings and warriors) were guided by the Brahmins (priests and scholars) in most decisions of war and peace.


Kings had religious advisors, but not in matters pertaining to wars. Mostly about how to govern the kingdom.

Theist monarchy is not possible in Hinduism because there is no agreed upon theology in Hinduism. Hence the wars between the kings were just that wars between the Kings and not wars between the sects that the kings belonged to.

If the Kings owed allegiance to theology, then Jaichand would not have betrayed Prithviraj Chauhan (the Delhi King) to Mohammed Ghori (Afghan invader whose general set up the first Islamic sultanate in India proper). The Rajput kings would not have allied with the Mughal emperors. The central Indian empire of Vijayanagar (Hindu) and Peninsular kingdoms of Chera, Chola and Pandyas (all hindu kingdoms) never allied against the Bamini Islamic sultans.

Hindu kingdoms were relatively weak because of such social decadence as well as political fragmentation brought about by the petty squabbles among the numerous kings who ruled the Indian subcontinent and mired it in a constant state of war.

True but there was never much of an external threat due to the protection that the Himalayas and the Pamir and the Hindu Kush mountains offered for many millenia. This protection from external invasions led to the diversity instead of solidarity. And when the Afghans and Turks came through the Khyber pass, it was too late for the kings to see a common cause. They totally underestimated the long term threat of the Islamic invasions. By the time the hindu revival happened with the help of Marathas and Sikhs, the British entered the scene. And in the same way how muslim invaders took over most of northern India aided by squabbling hindu kingdoms, the Brits took over whole of India aided by squabbling hindus and muslims.

Talk about learning from history...

Kamsaki,

There is a lecture on Mind, Brain and Consciousness by Srila H.H. Romapada Swamy. (http://www.romapadaswami.com/bio.html).

It was given by him on April 27th at Microsoft Corporation. At the webpage where his other lectures are stored (http://www.caitanya.com/index-complete.html) , this particular lecture is listed as "Offline - Available upon request".

I have the file, but I dunno how to host it. Can anybody help me with it?

Is the caste system still considered important? Why? If someone is an "untouchable", is it just because it's their karma and they in a sense "deserve" it?

Is the caste system still considered important? Why?

It is still important but its importance is reducing gradually. It is almost non-existent in urban environments and it is reducing in rural environments too.

Why? Because change takes time.

Caste has nothing to do with the "Hindu" religion and everything to do with the Hindu society.

Caste = Community. Caste is not bad per se, but caste based discrimination - because some idiots think that their castes are divinely mandated - is a horrible practice and needs to be removed from the Hindu society. I would call it casteism.

Read my posts in an earlier thread on the topic
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430712

If someone is an "untouchable", is it just because it's their karma and they in a sense "deserve" it?

Nobody deserves bad treatment. If you do that thinking that the other person "deserves" it due to his karma, remember that you will be getting it back by the same karmic laws. Many fools forget that. Treatment based on one's birth alone is a un-vedic trait.

Oh, I love everything involving India, fellows!!

But I'm only 19 so I haven't had enough time to study your culture as much as I want. Then, I have some questions:

Are gurus a valuable font of wisdom, or they are just swindlers? They have "special" capabilities, or real gurus are like normal people -but observers of a more high spiritual consciousness-?

It is useful to Indian life, when they come to the West to spread their words -kidda catholic missionaries-?

Regards.

Are gurus a valuable font of wisdom, or they are just swindlers? They have "special" capabilities, or real gurus are like normal people -but observers of a more high spiritual consciousness-?

Depends. Some are genuine spiritual masters. Others just BS and make money. Any decent reader can seperate the chalk from the wheat. Real gurus won't be after money and gimmicks.

But hey, if the gimmicks is what the people look for, then why blame the "swindler" who offers it for a price?


It is useful to Indian life, when they come to the West to spread their words -kidda catholic missionaries-?


Kinda taking the war to the enemy camp, only subtly ;)

Does a female regualarly walk behind a male when the walk together?

I'm just wondering because there's a couple at work whom I always
notice leaving in this fashion.

It could be I just havn't been there long enough to see different.



Just asking...

Does a female regualarly walk behind a male when the walk together?

I'm just wondering because there's a couple at work whom I always
notice leaving in this fashion.

It could be I just havn't been there long enough to see different.


Depends upon the local culture where the couple comes from. India is still a male dominated society where the wife is expected to be obedient to the husband etc. Some wives take it to the extreme by not walking along with the husband. They eat only after the husband has eaten etc..

As education and financial freedom for women increases these absurdities will decrease.

But certain modern day organizations have attempted to syncretise many views. The Neo-advaita school formed by Sri Ramakrishna and his disciple Vivekananda believe in syncretism. They state explicitly that there are several ways to attain the absolute and one need not be better than the other. Vivekananda, a famous monk of the neo-advaita school, said that he does not want others to become hindus, but rather the muslim to become a better muslim and the christian to become a better christian, since all religions lead to the same God.


So can I be a Christian and a Hindu? I always thought that was such a neat idea after reading The Life of Pi. I really like that book. But since I don't know any Hindus, I never really pusued it. So what would you have to do or believe in order to be considered a Hindu? Well, maybe that's a bad question. Earlier you said that all you have to do is just say you are one since Hinduism isn't really just one set of beliefs... but what would you say are the most important aspects of being a Hindu? Belief in Karma and your hard-to-explain place in the universe as part of the Supreme being? :confused:

So can I be a Christian and a Hindu?

Of course you can be.

I am a Christian Hindu myself. :) I believe in Christ, not Christianity. I do believe that Jesus took other's sins upon himself. I just don't believe that believing that alone would lead to my salvation. Also I don't believe that he is the only son of God. I believe in divinity in all life, so everyone is a son of God. I believe that Jesus is a realised yogi who tried to preach the love of God to ignorant people, in a simplified way.

So what would you have to do or believe in order to be considered a Hindu? Well, maybe that's a bad question. Earlier you said that all you have to do is just say you are one since Hinduism isn't really just one set of beliefs... but what would you say are the most important aspects of being a Hindu? Belief in Karma and your hard-to-explain place in the universe as part of the Supreme being? :confused:

It is hard to encapsulate what makes one Hindu, but these are the general universal beliefs of all Hindus of any variety.

1. A Supreme Godhead (may not be deity with a personality. Advaita, a branch of Hinduism, asserts an impersonal super soul (Brahman).

2. Our individual soul as unborn, undying, eternal, indivisible and indestructible and our soul as our real identity and not the material body which our soul is currently residing in.

3. Karma

4. Reincarnation/rebirth depending upon karma

5. Nirvana/moksha/salvation

These are the fundamental pillars of Hinduism. Reg point 1, Shaivites hold that the Supreme Godhead is Shiva, while Vaishnavites hold that it is Vishnu and Advaitins hold that both are illusions (Maya). And the various sects vary in what constitutes point 5 and how to attain it. But all sects believe in 2,3 and 4.

In my opinion, the central theme of Hinduism and Christianity is the same - Love of God.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you - is nothing but a simplified explanation of Karma.

Thou shall not kill - applies to animals as well and is an advocation of vegetarianism and non-violence.

If you read Paramahamsa Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi", you will find many interesting and insightful parallels on how the Holy spirit is similar to Brahman consciousness etc. I would strongly recommend that book for you.

I would strongly recommend that book for you.BTW...in a new thread...some are making allegations about Child slavery in India...and Indian Gov doing nothing about it...

I think these reports are exaggerated and sensationalist...

Just in case you want to give your viewpoint...

If you read Paramahamsa Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi", you will find many interesting and insightful parallels on how the Holy spirit is similar to Brahman consciousness etc. I would strongly recommend that book for you.

Thanks, that was really helpful. And I'll definitely check out that book. Thanks again! :D

BTW...in a new thread...some are making allegations about Child slavery in India...and Indian Gov doing nothing about it...

I these reports are exaggerated and sensationalist...

Just in case you want to give your viewpoint...

I have replied in that thread. Thanks all the same.

India can be accused of doing less for child labor. But child slavery has been abolished for the most part in India.

People have to realise that India is a third world country trying to improve social conditions. Poverty is a reality and cannot be changed overnight, as much as one is pained to see it. Overall, the trend is on the positive side and I am happy with it, even though I realise that there is a long way to go to for us. 50 years ago, more than 50% Indians went to bed hungry. My own parents have experienced poverty on dry seasons. Now people in chronic poverty are less than 20% and it is decreasing. At the turn of the last century, India's literacy was less than 5%. Now we stand at more than 70%.

Considering that we have been able to do this with the state that the Brits left us, all the while sustaining a functioning democracy with the bewildering diversity of 6 major religions with their own historic baggages, 25 major languages and more than 600 spoken languages, 1000s and 1000s of caste, tribal and ethnic divisions and not to forget 5 wars (4 with Pakistan and 1 with China) and an ongoing terrorism to boot....looking back at the road we have travelled...I am happy, although I realise that the road ahead is longer and daunting.

i have not read the whole thread, but can only second the opinion that

Finally, hopefully, a decent thread devoted to some religion other than Christianity! ^__^

hope this'll find even more readers

I think the biggest problem of Hinduism is the caste system. If we can demolish the caste system, other problems will be solved. I, personally don't have a caste because my dad's family reject the whole caste system.

Thank you creating a Hindu thread. You make a Hindu so proud of his religon. Hinduism is #1. But if only I could speak Gujarti and Hindi, but I can only understand it.

Thanks, that was really helpful. And I'll definitely check out that book. Thanks again! :D

Some kind soul has put up an online version here

http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/contents.asp

I am reproducing a poem from CHAPTER 14 An Experience in Cosmic Consciousness where he speaks of his blissful experience.

==============
I wrote, in my later years, the following poem, "Samadhi," endeavoring to convey the glory of its cosmic state:

Vanished the veils of light and shade,
Lifted every vapor of sorrow,
Sailed away all dawns of fleeting joy,
Gone the dim sensory mirage.
Love, hate, health, disease, life, death,
Perished these false shadows on the screen of duality.
Waves of laughter, scyllas of sarcasm, melancholic whirlpools,
Melting in the vast sea of bliss.
The storm of maya stilled
By magic wand of intuition deep.
The universe, forgotten dream, subconsciously lurks,
Ready to invade my newly-wakened memory divine.
I live without the cosmic shadow,
But it is not, bereft of me;
As the sea exists without the waves,
But they breathe not without the sea.
Dreams, wakings, states of deep turia sleep,
Present, past, future, no more for me,
But ever-present, all-flowing I, I, everywhere.
Planets, stars, stardust, earth,
Volcanic bursts of doomsday cataclysms,
Creation's molding furnace,
Glaciers of silent x-rays, burning electron floods,
Thoughts of all men, past, present, to come,
Every blade of grass, myself, mankind,
Each particle of universal dust,
Anger, greed, good, bad, salvation, lust,
I swallowed, transmuted all
Into a vast ocean of blood of my own one Being!
Smoldering joy, oft-puffed by meditation
Blinding my tearful eyes,
Burst into immortal flames of bliss,
Consumed my tears, my frame, my all.
Thou art I, I am Thou,
Knowing, Knower, Known, as One!
Tranquilled, unbroken thrill, eternally living, ever-new peace!
Enjoyable beyond imagination of expectancy, samadhi bliss!
Not an unconscious state
Or mental chloroform without wilful return,
Samadhi but extends my conscious realm
Beyond limits of the mortal frame
To farthest boundary of eternity
Where I, the Cosmic Sea,
Watch the little ego floating in Me.
The sparrow, each grain of sand, fall not without My sight.
All space floats like an iceberg in My mental sea.
Colossal Container, I, of all things made.
By deeper, longer, thirsty, guru-given meditation
Comes this celestial samadhi.
Mobile murmurs of atoms are heard,
The dark earth, mountains, vales, lo! molten liquid!
Flowing seas change into vapors of nebulae!
Aum blows upon vapors, opening wondrously their veils,
Oceans stand revealed, shining electrons,
Till, at last sound of the cosmic drum,
Vanish the grosser lights into eternal rays
Of all-pervading bliss.
From joy I came, for joy I live, in sacred joy I melt.
Ocean of mind, I drink all creation's waves.
Four veils of solid, liquid, vapor, light,
Lift aright.
Myself, in everything, enters the Great Myself.
Gone forever, fitful, flickering shadows of mortal memory.
Spotless is my mental sky, below, ahead, and high above.
Eternity and I, one united ray.
A tiny bubble of laughter, I
Am become the Sea of Mirth Itself.
=================

http://www.yogananda-srf.org/ is the official webpage of the Self-realization foundation started by Swami Paramahamsa Yogananda in the US. Found this in a page about him

On March 7, 1952, Paramahansa Yogananda entered mahasamadhi, a God-illumined master's conscious exit from the body at the time of physical death. His passing was marked by an extraordinary phenomenon. A notarized statement signed by the Director of Forest Lawn Memorial-Park testified: "No physical disintegration was visible in his body even twenty days after death....This state of perfect preservation of a body is, so far as we know from mortuary annals, an unparalleled one....Yogananda's body was apparently in a phenomenal state of immutability."

man, you should be glad you write poetry. I can't even do one. That's why I took a zero on my poetry assignment.

So can I be a Christian and a Hindu? I always thought that was such a neat idea after reading The Life of Pi. I really like that book. But since I don't know any Hindus, I never really pusued it. So what would you have to do or believe in order to be considered a Hindu? Well, maybe that's a bad question. Earlier you said that all you have to do is just say you are one since Hinduism isn't really just one set of beliefs... but what would you say are the most important aspects of being a Hindu? Belief in Karma and your hard-to-explain place in the universe as part of the Supreme being? :confused:
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness(Hare Krishna) believe that both Vishnu and Jesus were incarnations of Krishna. May Allah bless you, and Hare Krishna. :) Man am I confused spiritualy. :D

man, you should be glad you write poetry. I can't even do one. That's why I took a zero on my poetry assignment.

No, the poem was written by Paramahamsa Yogananda.

I don't write poems. I write crap in internet forums instead. :D

Stumpneria prabhu,

ISKCON does not say that Jesus is an incarnation of Krisna. They (and I) do consider Jesus as a true devotee of the Supreme Lord.

Also, according the ISKCON philosophy, Vishnu is not an incarnation of Krishna. Rather Krishna is the Supreme personality of the Godhead who also has unlimited names such as Rama, Buddha, Vishnu, Jehovah, Allah, etc.

Hope this confuses you more. :)

Maybe you typed this already?

The caste system. Is that religiously based or just societal?

Maybe this is a stupid question?

Would a janitor be considered a really low caste

and a unemployed or homeless person an untouchable outside
the caste system?


Or does it have nothing to do with jobs
or what in the US is sometimes referred to as 'class'.

Interesting thread, Aryavartha. Is the concept of forgiveness found in Hindu belief, and how does it apply to enlightenment and karma?

I know little about Hinduism, thanks for this thread.

I just have a couple of questions regarding your belief in Jesus Christ.

Can you tell me some of his teachings that parallel other Hindu teachings?

What do you say to the fact that Jesus said he was the only way to heaven?

It just seems to me that Jesus claims made it impossible to follow him and any other set of beliefs.

How do I vote for Kali?
Ganesha is cool too, but Kali seems the most worthwhile. So unfortunate that the female deity is always personified as both "life-giver" and "destroyer."
Very good post! I also hope to come back to it and give it the attention that is deserves!

BTW...in a new thread...some are making allegations about Child slavery in India...and Indian Gov doing nothing about it...

I think these reports are exaggerated and sensationalist...

Just in case you want to give your viewpoint...
Yawn. Child slavery is prevalent all over the globe. Even in the US. To single out India is completely asinine.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness(Hare Krishna) believe that both Vishnu and Jesus were incarnations of Krishna. May Allah bless you, and Hare Krishna. :) Man am I confused spiritualy. :D
Ah! But at least you are spiritual in some way. That counts, I'm sure.

I guess, within India, people don't care for the labels. I "converted" from Advaita to Vaishnavism without nobody knowing it. Only outside India, the labels take importance.

Why, if I may ask? To me, Advaita makes the most sense, especially in light of what modern science tells us about the universe. It took the western world thousands of years, with the advent of postmodern thought, to come to these ideas.

Caste = Community. Caste is not bad per se, but caste based discrimination - because some idiots think that their castes are divinely mandated - is a horrible practice and needs to be removed from the Hindu society. I would call it casteism.

But isn't it? In the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 4) Lord Krishna says, "I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions." But I understand many modern Hindu people do not follow caste. How is this reconciled?

I am a Christian Hindu myself. I believe in Christ, not Christianity. I do believe that Jesus took other's sins upon himself. I just don't believe that believing that alone would lead to my salvation. Also I don't believe that he is the only son of God. I believe in divinity in all life, so everyone is a son of God. I believe that Jesus is a realised yogi who tried to preach the love of God to ignorant people, in a simplified way.

This is why Hinduism is great. You won't find many Christians saying that they accept Hinduism. I can also see Jesus as a Buddha.

I see the message of Jesus as coming right out of the Upanishads. Jesus said "I and my father are one," the Upanishads tells us that atman is embodied Brahman. The "Christ," an aspect of God, is in all of us.


Would a janitor be considered a really low caste

and a unemployed or homeless person an untouchable outside
the caste system?


Or does it have nothing to do with jobs
or what in the US is sometimes referred to as 'class'.


As I understand it, there are four castes: Brahmins (religious specialists), vaishyas (farmers and craftsmen), Kshatriyas (warriors), and shudras (servants). If you are a Brahmin but you are working as a farmer, you are not following your dharma. But I could be completely wrong.

I just have a couple of questions regarding your belief in Jesus Christ.

Can you tell me some of his teachings that parallel other Hindu teachings?

What do you say to the fact that Jesus said he was the only way to heaven?

It just seems to me that Jesus claims made it impossible to follow him and any other set of beliefs.
You were obviously addressing someone else with this post, but Im putting in my opinion.
What does the Bible tell of Jesus' formative, coming-of-age years? Exactly. Nothing. There is a widely held belief that he was travelling extensively throughout East Asia. It's believed that he picked up much of his teachings from his (speculative) time spent there. It is said that there was a coin struck in his honor in Nepal in the first century after his death. There is actually a lot of Jesus' true teachings that parallel at least Buddhism, if not Hinduism. "Love thy neighbor" being one that comes to mind. There wasn't much loving of neighbors amongst the Hebrews in Judea and it's surrounds at the time Jesus lived, the Roman occupation notwithstanding.
As far as the impossibility of following Jesus and no other, I personally don't trust the translation; that happens to be my biggest beef with the modern Christian Bible.
I could source a bunch of sites with "evidence" that Jesus spent time in the Far East in his teens and early twenties (and even "after his cruxifiction" for that matter. And then I could source a bunch of sites with "evidence" to the contrary. Suffice it to say, that my opinion is that it is very plausible he spent time in East Asia, after travelling to Egypt, that is, which is historically documented and congruent with scripture, so I am told.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you give us any links you have both "for" and "against"? It's a very intriguing hypothesis.

Maybe you typed this already?

The caste system. Is that religiously based or just societal?

Maybe this is a stupid question?

Would a janitor be considered a really low caste

and a unemployed or homeless person an untouchable outside
the caste system?


Or does it have nothing to do with jobs
or what in the US is sometimes referred to as 'class'.

All castes are hereditary and not based on a person's profession, though that was the original intention of the hindu caste system. Since independence, the Indian government is trying (with moderate success) to alleviate the social injustices arising out of the caste system by providing reservations in education and government jobs, based on castes for the lower caste people.

In urban areas, socio-economic class is more important than caste now. In most rural areas, caste still dominates social behaviour. Inter-caste marriages are a rarity. The lowest castes (termed as scheduled castes/tribes) are still victims of violent suppression in most rural areas. In India, the caste system has, over the years, permeated other religions too, though not as starkly visible as it is in the Hindu religion.

Sabbatis

Interesting thread, Aryavartha. Is the concept of forgiveness found in Hindu belief, and how does it apply to enlightenment and karma?

Thanks.

Of course there is forgiveness, for the Lord is nothing but love and mercy. There is no such thing as an eternal punishment in Hinduism. Even the worst offenders - mass murderers, paedophiles etc, can attain salvation/liberation. The only thing is that however enlightened they may become, they would still have to face the consequences of their karma. For ex, I have done a lot of stuff in my ignorance. Although I have realised my follies and don't do them, I would still have to suffer my karma. There is simply no getting around this. But truly enlightened yogis, do not treat this suffering as suffering because their knowledge is deep and their love of God is pure.

There are instances in Ramayana (the epic of Lord Ram, an avatar of Vishnu, the Supreme Godhead as per the Vaishnavists), where the Lord himself has to face his karma.

Bryce Crusader States

Can you tell me some of his teachings that parallel other Hindu teachings?

What do you say to the fact that Jesus said he was the only way to heaven?

It just seems to me that Jesus claims made it impossible to follow him and any other set of beliefs.

I would say, by what I understand from his main teachings, that he is a great propounder of Vaishnavist teachings.

I doubt if he actually said all the stuff that he is attributed to. The folks at the council of Nicea might have become overzealous ;)

Nobody except the Lord can deliver. Realized souls and spiritual masters can help and guide only to an extent. The actual realization has to come from within.


Velops


Why, if I may ask? To me, Advaita makes the most sense, especially in light of what modern science tells us about the universe. It took the western world thousands of years, with the advent of postmodern thought, to come to these ideas.

I should have been clearer.

There are several variants of advaita. The original one (classical advaita) was started by Shankaracharya many centuries ago. The Vaishnavist philosophy includes this advaita as in the brahman concept. But Vaishnavists do not consider that the impersonal brahman as the ultimate realization. We consider it as a stepping stone to the ultimate realization of Krishna who we consider as the supreme personality of Godhead.

Krishna clarifies this in the Gita.
http://www.asitis.com/14/27.html
Chapter 14. The Yoga of the Supreme Person
TEXT 27
And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.

http://www.asitis.com/14/3.html
Chapter 14. The Three Modes Of Material Nature
TEXT 3
The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of Bharata.

http://www.asitis.com/8/3.html
Chapter 8. Attaining the Supreme
TEXT 3
The Supreme Lord said, The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called the self. Action pertaining to the development of these material bodies is called karma, or fruitive activities.

Please read the purports of these verses to have a clearer understanding.

What I moved away from is the neo-advaita school of Ramakrishna which denies the personality of Godhead and stops with Brahman realization alone. Classical advaita is a very eloquent philosophy and Vaishnavism is inclusive of this philosophy.

I will be addressing the caste issue in the next post.

Shingogogol

Is that religiously based or just societal?

Maybe this is a stupid question?

Would a janitor be considered a really low caste

and a unemployed or homeless person an untouchable outside
the caste system?

Or does it have nothing to do with jobs
or what in the US is sometimes referred to as 'class'.

Velops

But isn't it? In the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 4) Lord Krishna says, "I created mankind in four classes, different in their qualities and actions." But I understand many modern Hindu people do not follow caste. How is this reconciled?

As I understand it, there are four castes: Brahmins (religious specialists), vaishyas (farmers and craftsmen), Kshatriyas (warriors), and shudras (servants). If you are a Brahmin but you are working as a farmer, you are not following your dharma. But I could be completely wrong.


I will elaborate on what Expera explained.

Velops,

Caste is different from Varna. Varna is not hereditary. The Gita speaks about Varna as in the four qualities of mankind. The spiritual (brahmin), the merchant (vaishya), the warrior-administrator (kshatriya) , the physical laborer/worker (Shudra). The classes have their own dharma (duties) which they are supposed to adhere to. This division is a natural division which is present in all societies.

A man is said to belong to one of these varnas by his qualities and character and what he does, not by in what family he was born into.

A man can be any of these varnas at different stages of his life. A person can be a shudra in his youth and can become a brahmin in his later life and vice versa.

Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana (an important epic of Ram, an avatar) was a shudra in his youth. He was a highway robber. Later he became a rishi/seer by meditation and he gained the status of the one who wrote Ramayana.

Also, a man also have these different qualities in him at the same time too, in different proportions. This is what is happening in this age.

Caste, OTOH, is hereditary and societal. It is a social division which started on the basis of people of one profession sticking to themselves. It is akin to community.

Let me attempt to explain the history of caste.

In ealier days, the profession of the father was taught to the son and he taught to his son and so on. Let's say the profession is baking. Naturally, the son would marry a girl from the same background, so it would fit in more. And within a few centuries, they become the baking community with some loosely defined traditions amongst themselves.

Even then it was not strictly hereditary and a person who practices this profession can become a baker. All this changed when the British came and they started to document the castes. The British themselves were a caste-ridden society (what is earl, counts, barons, princes etc but a form of caste) and this documenting and classification resulted in making the system rigid and not flexible. I am not blaming the Brits for the caste system. I am only saying that the rigidification was partly a result of the British administration. If it had been the egalitarian french who had colonised us, it would have well turned out to be different.

Coming to caste, the current caste system in hindu society is against hindu teachings. It is an un-vedic trait. Casteism as in "My caste is higher caste and I have the right to discriminate you because I was born into this caste" does not have any basis in any hindu holy books.

There are some who would quote a book called manusmriti (the law of Manu), which has references to caste as hereditary and what is higher caste and such nonsense but they don't realise that a smriti is for the times it was written and does not have divine sanction.

There are many hindu orgs which have actively denounced this practice. Arya Samaj has done lot of work in this inside India and ISKCON has done outstanding work in this outside India.

Lord Caitanya, the last avatar as per Vaishnavism, has said in Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 8.127,

"It does not matter whether a person is a vipra [learned scholar in Vedic wisdom] or is born in a lower family, or is in the renounced order of life--if he is master in the science of Krsna, he is the perfect and bona fide spiritual master."

The ISKCON temple I go to has an African-American (a former drug-addict, I was told), dressed in vedic manner, reciting the gita in sanskrit and doing the pujas for the Lord. He, by his qualities and practice, is a real brahmin. Not the guy who was just born into a brahmin family and calls himself one.

Finally,

Caste will never vanish. People will always have affinity towards their kins and community. But Casteism (caste based discrimination) is on its way out, due to the government's actions and the increasing awareness and equal opportunities for everyone.

Hmm would you say that Hinduism is actually expanding (more people from outside the faith embracing it) or just growing (people being born into the religion)?

Hmm would you say that Hinduism is actually expanding (more people from outside the faith embracing it) or just growing (people being born into the religion)?

Hinduism is still seen as an exotic quaint religion that Indians follow. Also many Hindus keep their religion to themselves and do not attempt to convince others of their beliefs. But I would say that there is more expansion these days. More and more non-Indians are attracted to hindu philosophies of various kinds.

Hinduism (with its branches of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Advaita) offers many alternatives to the people who are dissatisfied with the strict intrepretations of semitic monotheistic faiths.

Seriously, consider the options you have in Hinduism.

0 God, 1 impersonal super soul with no personality, 1 Supreme Godhead with a personality etc. If you are still not satisfied you have the 330 million Gods in the hindu pantheon. :D

Hmm would you say that Hinduism is actually expanding (more people from outside the faith embracing it) or just growing (people being born into the religion)?

In a way, everybody's a Hindu. Hinduism recognises all human beings as equal and thus, members of Hinduism. There are no pagans/heathens/infidels in Hinduism. If the Christians had no objection, Christ would have become another devata (divine being) in Hinduism and so would have Mohammed.

Hinduism is not a proselytizing religion. You can be a Hindu just by wanting to be one. You don't have be ritualistic.

India may supersede China as the most populous nation by 2040 (give or take 10 years), and hence Hinduism will be seen more as growing than actually expanding its religious base (as the term "religious base" is defined conventionally).

Edit: edited for clarity.

I've heard about being able to be reborn into a higher caste if one
lives a good life or being reborn into a lower caste if one lives a bad life.
If that is correct?

So one could not change this during one's lifetime?

If one was in say, the lowest caste or a middle caste,
one could not decide to "leave the caste system"
and become an untouchable?




For instance, I like what Eugene Debs, (who went to jail protesting WW1 and ran for president of the US while in serving time in jail) once said:

"While there is a lower class, I am of it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

It sounds like he wanted to be an 'untouchable' of sorts.

I've heard about being able to be reborn into a higher caste if one
lives a good life or being reborn into a lower caste if one lives a bad life.
If that is correct?

It is not correct.

Caste is a unvedic trait. It is a societal issue. It has no basis or sanction in the religion. Please do not mix the hindu spiritual concepts with hindu societal beliefs.

Also good life and bad life is very subjective. Being born into a higher caste does not automatically translate into a good life spiritually.

A caste brahmin (higher caste) by sticking to caste based beliefs has actually no hope of spiritual progress (rather he will suffer spiritual regress) than a person born in a lower caste (so called untouchables) and who is a true devotee of God.

It does not translate into a good material life also nowadays what with the spreading of education and opportunities to the masses and the reservation system (the Indian version of affirmative action, where in around 30% of seats in education is reserved for the so-called backward castes).


So one could not change this during one's lifetime?

If one was in say, the lowest caste or a middle caste,
one could not decide to "leave the caste system"
and become an untouchable?.

Not anymore.

Well technically, in inter caste marriages, the child has the option of choosing its caste. So it can choose a lower caste if it wants to.

People used to change castes inl the medieval days. Caste is loosely based on profession. Pre-Industrial era, this is how all feudal societies functioned. If a family is in the baking profession in the village in the olden days, they will be called the bakers. They will stick with other bakers and they would marry within the baking community and Voila, you have the baker caste. Now if a baker guy moves to another place and takes up another profession, say weaving, as time goes on, he becomes part of the weaving community and his caste is now weaver.

The system was fairly flexible compared to now. It became rigid after the British started documenting castes as part of the census and people were stuck with the caste. There are many castes which can be traced to that era, that has no record of existing before. For ex, a guy is asked what is his caste. He says he dunno. But there has to be something entered in the record books. So the official asks what he has been doing and uses that in the column and he uses the same name for people in similar profession and a new caste is born.

Please note that I am not saying that castes were not existing earlier. I am saying that they were not rigid,myriad and prevalent as it is now.

The British were themselves a very class conscious society and they looked at India through that prism. This social setup could be found everywhere in the world during that time. Professional guilds existed in UK where one is born into the profession and carries on the family tradition. There were the royals who would only marry with other royals and won't mix with commoners. For them, the commoners were untouchable.

However, the industrial age changed everything in the west. Anybody can do anything he wanted to do with no restriction and this changed the social makeup. Since India missed the Industrial bus, the Indian society is still stuck in the old setup and as time progresses and education and opportunity is made available to all, this will change.