Questions about Hinduism

[Madplayer]

Few of the biggest strengthens in Hinduism in my opinion

1) Hinduism recognizes that there can be other religions. It does not say it is the one true path. it does not say all other religions are wrong. It says there are multiple paths to God, some through rituals, some through prayers, and some through good work and doing your duty. Because of this, it is easy for Hindus to integrate wherever they go and they can be comfortable in a church, gurudwara or a mosque without thinking they are breaking any rules of Hinduism. They can celebrate all festivals

2) There is no pressure or need to convert others to Hinduism. Some religion needs their followers to actively convert, Hinduism doesn't

3) The ways of thanking and worshiping Gods are open and left to human beings. You can choose from many ways. For example, you can be thankful to cows and consider them holy. However, in need you can also be practical and not do it. You can visit temples, or worship a stone or a tree. Or you can not think of God for years. You can also just do your duties as a human being and still be good in Hinduism

Some of the above thinking is very important in today's society where we meet, interact and work with people from different religions, cultures, orientation, races. Not having a made up mind about who is right and who is wrong and what is taboo goes a long way in integrating and working together despite our differences

Now there are a million things which are taboos with some Indians, like eating beef, or eating non-veg or alcohol. Racism and discrimination abound. Female discrimination and abuse is a big problem. But all of these are cultural and nothing to do with Hinduism

I had read somewhere that the word Hinduism or hindu is nowhere mentioned in religious texts as a religion and it was coined later for a vast number of beliefs and texts all put together? Something like that. Can you or anyone please shed some light on it?

 

[JaDed]

I had read somewhere that the word Hinduism or hindu is nowhere mentioned in religious texts as a religion and it was coined later for a vast number of beliefs and texts all put together? Something like that. Can you or anyone please shed some light on it?

I thought it was a persian word for thief. :s

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I had read somewhere that the word Hinduism or hindu is nowhere mentioned in religious texts as a religion and it was coined later for a vast number of beliefs and texts all put together? Something like that. Can you or anyone please shed some light on it?

Yep.

It was a name given to us (subcontinent people) by outsiders.

 

[jeetu]

I had read somewhere that the word Hinduism or hindu is nowhere mentioned in religious texts as a religion and it was coined later for a vast number of beliefs and texts all put together? Something like that. Can you or anyone please shed some light on it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India
most probably word "Hindu" came from Sindu (Indus) river.

 

[DesiMunda]

1.What is Hinduism?Is it a religion?

It is an aggregate of various different practices in the subcontinent with the general current of "Dharma" running through them. Dharma can loosely stand for morality / righteousness. Following Dharma is something that moves us away from animals following "matsya nyaya" (law of fishes -- ie big fish eats small fish), and towards thinking about others.

There are various "forms" of Hinduism, as this is an aggregate religion. Over the years there have been various philosophies by thinkers (sadhus) and all of them kind of get clubbed into hinduism. In fact the charvaka school of thought was a "nastik" (atheist) school of thought, and that is also a form of Hinduism ..

There were lots of local gods and dieties that people in different regions of the country worshipped, and these dieties while being part of the fringes of hinduism, kept moving in and out of the mainstream. All of these gods, dieties, and stories also get clubbed into Hinduism.

The time at which the initial Vedas were written, a lot of aggregation had already taken place, as you can make out by the references to some local dieties and gods.

2.What's the actual name of Hinduism cause "Hinduism" is a foreign name?

The core is Dharma. The root of the word Dharma is Dhr which means to hold tight. Dharma is something that holds the society together. The root word Dhr also gives rise to the word Dharti (i.e. earth -- something that holds us to the ground).

3.Do Hindus believe in the concept of heaven & hell?Do Hindus have prophets.

There is a concept of avatars, which is different from prophets. Some people believe that gods themselves came down in the form of various avatars, while others think that the avatars are symbols of the human journey across different yugas (eras).

Some people believe in a swarga and a narka (heaven and hell). But not all hindus believe in it.

4.How many dieties do Hindus believe in and which is the main one?

Infinite. You can keep adding/removing gods and dieties which appear to be dharmic as it is an aggregate religion.

Currently, there are 3 main gods and 3 main goddesses in the inner core of hinduism(Each god and goddess has certain symbolisms as you can make out by their pictures/idols by the things they hold, etc)
Gods: Brahma (creator), Vishnu (shiva), Shiva (destroyer)
Goddesses: Laxmi (wealth), Sarasvati (knowledge), Durga (emotion)
The ideal is that a person needs to have a balance of all three goddesses in their life in order to be "successful"
Ironically, Brahma the creator isn't worshipped as he is shown as chasing the three goddesses and signifies the chase without paying attention to Dharma.
Vishnu, accompanied by the snake (short vision) and a bird (long vision), signifies the ideal where the goddesses accompany him on their own accord, and he just follows the Dharmic route.
Shiva, the destroyer, indicates

Note that there are a lot more interpretations to each of the gods and goddesses, as each traditional depiction of a god has different symbolism.

5.How many different sects of Hinduism are there and what's their geographic distribution?

I wouldn't be able to answer this.

6.Are all Hindus forbidden from drinking alochol,fornicating and eating beef?

No. Generally speaking, harming animals for no reason would go against Dharma.

7.What's the most important book in Hinduism and do ordinary Hindus read it?and do Hindus fast like Muslims, if they do, how different is it?

Gita would be the most recent important book. A lot of hindus would've read some of it. The Vedas and the Upanishads (sort of a summary of the Vedas) are the oldest ones we know of.

Fasting: yeah some fast, but it is not necessary.

8.Do Hindus that follow different sects and worship different dieties believe they follow the same religion and believe in a body of "Hindu people", or do they see themselves independtly?

Most would consider themselves as "Hindu", though their own local dieties would be on a higher platform than the current inner core dieties.

9.What are some of the biggest sins in Hinduism, what are the punishments for them?

Adharma (opposite of Dharma) is the biggest sin.

10.What are non Hindus called?

There is no term for them, as far as I know.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

OP will never get a uniform answer to Religion & God in Hinduism like you get Islam or Christianity.

The present day Hindu religion is just an amalgamation of various schools of thoughts that existed all over subcontinent.

Hinduism is an inclusive religion. There is no Us vs Them. Everything is good and accepted. That is the reason why it survived for so long.

Christians and Muslims will laugh at this, but given a chance, Hinduism will include Prophets Jesus and Mohammed as Avatars of Vishnu. I am sure some people might have tried this and Muslim rulers in the past must have butchered them for attempting it.

This bit bothers me. Since I can't convert to Hinduism and be equal in rank to a high caste Hindu such as a Rajput or a Brahmin, then in what way can it be called inclusive? I did a thread called the Hindutva Chronicles (or something similar) where I included the writings of some of the great Hindutva professors down the ages, and the general consensus seemed to be that only those that were tied to the land by both ancestry and Hindu culture could be considered accepted as Hindus. Christians and Muslims were thus ruled out even if they had lived there for generations. The best you can hope for is to be a non- Hindu or a second class one if your conversion is accepted.

 

[hamzie]

Not really bro.

I dunno about the verses...it may be true but thing is that when you take religious texts, you have to take all verses and find the common meaning.

God is considered both formless and having form for he is all knowing, all powerful and ever present.

If God is just formless as said in one part of the Vedic texts, then Rama, Krishna, Kalki and the whole avatar concept won't exist.

but if one part says it has form and the other says it doesnt.. isnt that contradictory :/

 

[cricketjoshila]

but if one part says it has form and the other says it doesnt.. isnt that contradictory :/

Not it isnt.The vedas say that God is formless and nameless but all forms and all names are his.The different quality of god took a manifestation of form to enable the followers to see as it is easier for humans to worship/pray to someone whom their senses can sense.Even among Hindus the NIRGUN worshippers worship god without form.

 

[Deosai]

This bit bothers me. Since I can't convert to Hinduism and be equal in rank to a high caste Hindu such as a Rajput or a Brahmin, then in what way can it be called inclusive? I did a thread called the Hindutva Chronicles (or something similar) where I included the writings of some of the great Hindutva professors down the ages, and the general consensus seemed to be that only those that were tied to the land by both ancestry and Hindu culture could be considered accepted as Hindus. Christians and Muslims were thus ruled out even if they had lived there for generations. The best you can hope for is to be a non- Hindu or a second class one if your conversion is accepted.

That's interesting.

The caste system and "blood purity" does seem to be a big part of the Hindu faith, I wonder if a Hindu here could explain how the Hindu caste system works and the whole 4 vernas

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

but if one part says it has form and the other says it doesnt.. isnt that contradictory :/

Ok I asked my bua about this (she is a scholar).

She said even in Upanishads, its mentioned that God doesn't have a form or body.

That means God doesn't have a form or body like us humans. Which is prakritik shareeram.

His body is aprakrithik shareeram. Indestructible. Completely isolated from the worldly surroundings as we know. All people who go to ultimate heaven have this shareeram (body).

The thing with religious texts is that there are tons of statements made and we have to see the context of the preceeding ones or context of the topic or complete texts to get the idea.

Of course, with such texts, slight interpretation differences arise too.

 

[IgnitedMind]

This bit bothers me. Since I can't convert to Hinduism and be equal in rank to a high caste Hindu such as a Rajput or a Brahmin, then in what way can it be called inclusive? I did a thread called the Hindutva Chronicles (or something similar) where I included the writings of some of the great Hindutva professors down the ages, and the general consensus seemed to be that only those that were tied to the land by both ancestry and Hindu culture could be considered accepted as Hindus. Christians and Muslims were thus ruled out even if they had lived there for generations. The best you can hope for is to be a non- Hindu or a second class one if your conversion is accepted.

from my limited knowledge about religion, Brahmin and Rajput are castes and it is passed on in birth...there is no conversion into castes and it has nothing to do with hinduism !

A hindu is a hindu is a hindu ! there is no heirarchy in hindu like in caste system !

 

[Deosai]

from my limited knowledge about religion, Brahmin and Rajput are castes and it is passed on in birth...there is no conversion into castes and it has nothing to do with hinduism !

A hindu is a hindu is a hindu ! there is no heirarchy in hindu like in caste system !

but the castes comes from hinduism if i'm not wrong?

 

[IgnitedMind]

but the castes comes from hinduism if i'm not wrong?

I think you are wrong !

Vedic Society has castes which are your...brahmin...kshatriya...vaishyas ..shudhras..

and later on caste is a social demarcation based on occupation of a person ....

Anybody else can correct me..but I do not think Caste has its originals in hinduism...

 

[Deosai]

I think you are wrong !

Vedic Society has castes which are your...brahmin...kshatriya...vaishyas ..shudhras..

and later on caste is a social demarcation based on occupation of a person ....

Anybody else can correct me..but I do not think Caste has its originals in hinduism...

But Vedas is a big part of Hinduism... and caste is still a big issue in india

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think you are wrong !

Vedic Society has castes which are your...brahmin...kshatriya...vaishyas ..shudhras..

and later on caste is a social demarcation based on occupation of a person ....

Anybody else can correct me..but I do not think Caste has its originals in hinduism...

So why does caste system exist in India? I am pretty certain that caste system is endorsed in some Hindu texts like Manusmriti.

 

[speed]

But Vedas is a big part of Hinduism... and caste is still a big issue in india

I think caste system in the form where it is discriminatory is from the the text of the manusmriti, some of the stuff in there against shudras is crazy.

 

[Stewie]

I always thought the caste system of Hindus is deeply entrenched in their beliefs and religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I always thought the caste system of Hindus is deeply entrenched in their beliefs and religion.

It is in reality even if no one admits it online. It's still quite ingrained in Pakistan never mind India.

 

[IgnitedMind]

It is in reality even if no one admits it online. It's still quite ingrained in Pakistan never mind India.

I think it depends on what kinda of caste system ...today's modern day caste system is based on occupation of a person..one reservation is based on !

The one's in Vedic period or manusmriti is different...which is not followed by regular day to day hindus!

 

[Deosai]

I think it depends on what kinda of caste system ...today's modern day caste system is based on occupation of a person..one reservation is based on !

The one's in Vedic period or manusmriti is different...which is not followed by regular day to day hindus!

I don't think so, it plays a big role in marriage and also in the social mobility in other groups, which ones have the power and which ones don't is also determined by caste. Neighborhoods and communities are all formed around caste, who you rent or sell your house, and who you employ or work for is all influenced by caste, government,education and history is shaped by it - it's much like race in America 50 years ago, it's really institutionalized, so I don't think it should be played down

 

[IgnitedMind]

I don't think so, it plays a big role in marriage and also in the social mobility in other groups, which ones have the power and which ones don't is also determined by caste. Neighborhoods and communities are all formed around caste, who you rent or sell your house, and who you employ or work for is all influenced by caste, government,education and history is shaped by it - it's much like race in America 50 years ago, it's really institutionalized, so I don't think it should be played down

I am not playing down...I am talking it's relation to hinduism ! It is more societal than Hinduism is what my opinion is !

 

[Stewie]

I am not playing down...I am talking it's relation to hinduism ! It is more societal than Hinduism is what my opinion is !

But its in your holy scripture.. How can you claim its more societal than religious?

 

[adit_sh]

I am not playing down...I am talking it's relation to hinduism ! It is more societal than Hinduism is what my opinion is !

All the caste system is man made and infact these are called varnas (means classification). Some sages had devised this concept because of limited resources and avoiding few people to get everything. For example Brahmin is one who has knowledge/education/information etc...Kshatriyas are associated with weapons and wars, Vaishyas are associated with Business/land owners and Shudras are associated with Labors. This was done to ensure that few people should not get hands on everything due to limited resources at that time.

Now a born brahmin becomes a laborer means that he is no longer a brahmin but a shudra ( note this is not a bad word). We all know how important and vital the labor work is for the society. similarly if a born shudra gains education and knowledge then he automatically becomes brahmin.

Its just very unfortunate that the caste system still exists and this is nothing to do with the hindu way of life as such.

 

[Stewie]

I am confused. Even Fredreick Neitze was a huge fan of the Hindu holy sciprture which talks about the caste system. Now I am seeing some of you claim its nothing to do with Hinduism?

So the book was not divine then? It was written by man?

 

[brute]

That's interesting.

The caste system and "blood purity" does seem to be a big part of the Hindu faith, I wonder if a Hindu here could explain how the Hindu caste system works and the whole 4 vernas

AFAIK the caste system wasn't prevelant in ancient India.

The caste system began with the arrival of the Aryans in India. The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BC. Before the Aryans there were other communities in India of other origins. Among them Negrito, Mongoloid, Austroloid and Dravidian. The Negrito have physical features similar to people of Africa. The Mongoloid have Chinese features. The Austroloids have features similar the aboriginals of Australia. The Dravidians originate from the Mediterranean and they were the largest community in India. When the Aryans arrived in India their main contact was with the Dravidians and the Austroloids. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India.

The Aryans organized among themselves in three groups. The first group was of the warriors and they were called Rajayana, later they changed their name Rajayana to Kshatria. The second group was of the priests and they were called Brahmans. These two groups struggled politically for leadership among the Aryans. In this struggle the Brahmans got to be the leaders of the Aryan society. The third group was of the farmers and craftsmen and they were called Vaisia. The Aryans who conquered and took control over parts of north India subdued the locals and made them their servants. In this process the Vaisias who were the farmers and the craftsmen became the landlords and the businessmen of the society and the locals became the peasants and the craftsmen of the society.

In order to secure their status the Aryans resolved some social and religious rules which, allowed only them to be the priests, warriors and the businesmen of the society.

 

[adit_sh]

I am confused. Even Fredreick Neitze was a huge fan of the Hindu holy sciprture which talks about the caste system. Now I am seeing some of you claim its nothing to do with Hinduism?

So the book was not divine then? It was written by man?

Not sure about that but this is what our parents taught us, this is how we grew up and it is in consistence with the information available in the net. Unfortunately we couldnt convince few fellow mates for whom the caste system was embedded in their inner minds. Still in many in rural/urban areas believe in it very strongly.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Caste system is part of Hinduism.

Not sure about Aryan theory.

The land "Bharat" as mentioned in itihas (Ramayana, Mahabharatha) consisted of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of China, Bangladesh and caste system was there even in those days. Atleast religiously speaking.

 

[adit_sh]

Caste system is part of Hinduism.

Not sure about Aryan theory.

The land "Bharat" as mentioned in itihas (Ramayana, Mahabharatha) consisted of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of China, Bangladesh and caste system was there even in those days. Atleast religiously speaking.

It is NOT dude. Just browse some authentic websites and you will know. Its a man made stuff based on some problems.

 

[Stewie]

It is NOT dude. Just browse some authentic websites and you will know. Its a man made stuff based on some problems.

So it is not in your holy books as some Hindu posters have already stated?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It is NOT dude. Just browse some authentic websites and you will know. Its a man made stuff based on some problems.

Lol...

My aunt is a scholar who has done her education for over 2 decades under a proper guru whose guru lineage can be tracked. Why would I see "authentic sites" which are hardly reliable too?

Don't trust the internet for these things. Too much rubbish spouted.

Check out Dharma Shastra (Hindu jurisprudence), Vedas and stuff. There are infinite references of caste. Infinite.

 

[adit_sh]

Lol...

My aunt is a scholar who has done her education for over 2 decades under a proper guru whose guru lineage can be tracked. Why would I see "authentic sites" which are hardly reliable too?

Don't trust the internet for these things. Too much rubbish spouted.

Check out Dharma Shastra (Hindu jurisprudence), Vedas and stuff. There are infinite references of caste. Infinite.

Not a single one in Veda. Not a single one in Geetha. If you can quote then people will be benefited.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Dharma Shastra is Hindu jurisprudence for across all births (and not this life alone).

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Not a single one in Veda. Not a single one in Geetha. If you can quote then people will be benefited.

Huh?

Without even digging anything up, I will use simple wikipedia for you.

raditionally, Dharmaśāstra has, since the time of the Yājñvalkyasmṛti, been divided into three major topics: 1) ācāra, rules pertaining to daily rituals, life-cycle rites, and other duties of four castes or varṇas, 2) vyavahāra, rules pertaining to the procedures for resolving doubts about dharma and rules of substantive law categorized according the standard eighteen titles of Hindu law, and 3) prāyaścitta, rules about expiations and penances for violations of the rules of dharma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaśāstra

 

[adit_sh]

Not a single one in Veda. Not a single one in Geetha. If you can quote then people will be benefited.

ofcourse I dont know all 4 vedas but for sure it is not in Yajurvedas based on the knowledge of my acquaintance with a scholar from Sringeri peetham

 

[adit_sh]

Huh?

Without even digging anything up, I will use simple wikipedia for you.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaśāstra

This is a classification which is man-made not not God created so it is not part of Hindu religion. do u agree?

 

[adit_sh]

So it is not in your holy books as some Hindu posters have already stated?

Can a caste system possibly be God created ? If not then it is not a part of any religion.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This is a classification which is man-made not not God created so it is not part of Hindu religion. do u agree?

Who said its man made?

Bro...let's simplify it without going in depth.

Rama was a kshatriya. Vishwamitra was a Brahmin. Its mentioned in ramayana. Do you consider Ramayana false?

Parasurama cursed Karna cos he lied to him as Brahmin when he was Kshatriya. This is in Mahabharatha. If you call Mahabharatha man made, then by default Gita becomes man made too (cos Gita's verses are part of the whole Mahabharatha scripture).

Do you consider Gita man made too?

No right?

There you go.

I am just taking a very surface level view but its enough to get the picture.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Can a caste system possibly be God created ? If not then it is not a part of any religion.

Yes, it is part of religion.

Its also mentioned that caste is a result of actions in past births.

No Hindu (atleast vast majority) disputes the existence of caste system.

Some say caste is based on profession only while others say its based on birth (though in the prev Yugas exceptions were there) and each caste were duty bound to do their profession.

But no one says there is nothing called caste when its clearly there.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

All the caste system is man made and infact these are called varnas (means classification). Some sages had devised this concept because of limited resources and avoiding few people to get everything. For example Brahmin is one who has knowledge/education/information etc...Kshatriyas are associated with weapons and wars, Vaishyas are associated with Business/land owners and Shudras are associated with Labors. This was done to ensure that few people should not get hands on everything due to limited resources at that time.

Now a born brahmin becomes a laborer means that he is no longer a brahmin but a shudra ( note this is not a bad word). We all know how important and vital the labor work is for the society. similarly if a born shudra gains education and knowledge then he automatically becomes brahmin.

Its just very unfortunate that the caste system still exists and this is nothing to do with the hindu way of life as such.

Can you name me a few Brahmins who have become Shudras or Shudras who have become Brahmins due to a change in fortunes of that family line? Surely in that case there must be plenty of untouchables who can trace back their lineage to Brahmin or other high castes before falling on hard times.

 

[adit_sh]

Who said its man made?

Bro...let's simplify it without going in depth.

Rama was a kshatriya. Vishwamitra was a Brahmin. Its mentioned in ramayana. Do you consider Ramayana false?

Parasurama cursed Karna cos he lied to him as Brahmin when he was Kshatriya. This is in Mahabharatha. If you call Mahabharatha man made, then by default Gita becomes man made too (cos Gita's verses are part of the whole Mahabharatha scripture).

Do you consider Gita man made too?

No right?

There you go.

I am just taking a very surface level view but its enough to get the picture.

Vishwamitra was not a born Brahmin - do you know? Based on his work/knowledge he was called a brahmin.
Brahmin/Kshatriyas are just the classification and nothing to do with what God has given to us.
Rama was born kshatriya but he showed that all people are equal by eating shabari's ber. He was out to prove that caste system is just a classification based on the work and nothing else.

The curse of Karna was for the lie and not for being a shudra or kshatriya.

very simple, u believe in one god who stays in vaikuntam ( brahman okate), do u think he will classify his creation on the basis of birth?

 

[adit_sh]

Can you name me a few Brahmins who have become Shudras or Shudras who have become Brahmins due to a change in fortunes of that family line? Surely in that case there must be plenty of untouchables who can trace back their lineage to Brahmin or other high castes before falling on hard times.

hmm....all the names who have attained knowledge are brahmins, it is that simple. Again it is not a caste but just a classification. just like you categorize someone in your neighbor like " he is a highly educated fellow" or he is a "captain in the army" etc...

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Can you name me a few Brahmins who have become Shudras or Shudras who have become Brahmins due to a change in fortunes of that family line? Surely in that case there must be plenty of untouchables who can trace back their lineage to Brahmin or other high castes before falling on hard times.

Good question.

I will answer that.

Sure in the past yugas, there are references of other caste members being considered Brahmins (like Ved Vyas was born to a rishi and a fisherwoman but is considered a Brahmin - in normal circumstances a kid born to a Brahmin and some other caste isn't considered a Brahmin).

But with that being said, caste is HEAVILY HEAVILY based on births. If it was based only on profession, why would Parasurama choose only Brahmins as students for archery training when in such a case, Brahmins would automatically become kshatriyas. Just one of the examples.

As much as I hate to accept it, its TRUE that untouchability concept is there in Hinduism too (though its never mentioned to illtreat untouchables or abuse them but yeah they weren't the same as other castes - one of our alwars were born as an untouchable to drive home the point).

This is the reality.


[MENTION=4915]adit_sh[/MENTION] - Bro...my post is a general response to Cpt Rishwat about a long standing topic. Don't think this post is an indirect response to you.

 

[adit_sh]

SIF - Your argument on parasurama is based on your interpretation. The reason he could have done that because of high attrocities the kings of that time would have commited and he may require people with knowledge like brahmins to learn the weaponry and fight those criminals and instill dharma.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Vishwamitra was not a born Brahmin - do you know? Based on his work/knowledge he was called a brahmin.
Brahmin/Kshatriyas are just the classification and nothing to do with what God has given to us.
Rama was born kshatriya but he showed that all people are equal by eating shabari's ber. He was out to prove that caste system is just a classification based on the work and nothing else.

The curse of Karna was for the lie and not for being a shudra or kshatriya.

very simple, u believe in one god who stays in vaikuntam ( brahman okate), do u think he will classify his creation on the basis of birth?

Yes there are exceptions in previous Yugas.

Do you deny Rama was a kshatriya?

Parasurama FOUND out about Karna's lie (about being a kshatriya) due to his ability to withstand the bee's sting (which he SAID kshatriya's can only withstand). And what is the basis of lie - him being brahmin when he was not.

Rama ate the fruits of Shabari but that's a often used argument. So? Doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything or cancel out all the Upanishads, Itihas, Vedas, Dharamashastra stuff.

Yes, its mentioned that God has created castes and castes are NOT randomly based but based on your past birth's actions.

This is from Gita (RIGHT FROM LORD KRISHNA's mouth) 4:13

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māḿ
viddhy akartāram avyayam

Rough translation: 4 varnas are my creation. They are based on guna and karma. Even though I am the creator, I didn't choose your varna for you.

Its all based on your actions.

Now this is the one statement that has caused a lot of disagreement as to whether caste is just profession based or both profession and birth based. Let's not get into that cos that's a long topic and we need TONS of context for that along with going back to read the other verses in Gita.

 

[Stewie]

Good question.

I will answer that.

Sure in the past yugas, there are references of other caste members being considered Brahmins (like Ved Vyas was born to a rishi and a fisherwoman but is considered a Brahmin - in normal circumstances a kid born to a Brahmin and some other caste isn't considered a Brahmin).

But with that being said, caste is HEAVILY HEAVILY based on births. If it was based only on profession, why would Parasurama choose only Brahmins as students for archery training when in such a case, Brahmins would automatically become kshatriyas. Just one of the examples.

As much as I hate to accept it, its TRUE that untouchability concept is there in Hinduism too (though its never mentioned to illtreat untouchables or abuse them but yeah they weren't the same as other castes - one of our alwars were born as an untouchable to drive home the point).

This is the reality.


[MENTION=4915]adit_sh[/MENTION] - Bro...my post is a general response to Cpt Rishwat about a long standing topic. Don't think this post is an indirect response to you.

that sounds about right and in line with my perception.

the caste system is in the religion and the holy scripture, man is destined or born to o certain functions in life and hence born into those castes but can be reborn a higher being based on his deeds in the current life. So while the caste system is there and so is the untouchable concept, I think the rest is just a man made mutation of the religion.

For instance I have heard that Brehmins would pour molten lead into ears of Shudars who heard them pray or something. And that if if an untouchable touched a higher caste hindu, his dharam would be bharasht which I believe is akin to being unfaithful to one's religion.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

SIF - Your argument on parasurama is based on your interpretation. The reason he could have done that because of high attrocities the kings of that time would have commited and he may require people with knowledge like brahmins to learn the weaponry and fight those criminals and instill dharma.

Dude...you are assuming stuff bro. Please Google it and see. No one disputes what Parasurama said.

Anways, posted a verse in Gita in the prev post which you cannot dispute.

 

[adit_sh]

Yes there are exceptions in previous Yugas.

Do you deny Rama was a kshatriya?

Parasurama FOUND out about Karna's lie (about being a kshatriya) due to his ability to withstand the bee's sting (which he SAID kshatriya's can only withstand). And what is the basis of lie - him being brahmin when he was not.

Rama ate the fruits of Shabari but that's a often used argument. So? Doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything or cancel out all the Upanishads, Itihas, Vedas, Dharamashastra stuff.

Yes, its mentioned that God has created castes and castes are NOT randomly based but based on your past birth's actions.

This is from Gita (RIGHT FROM LORD KRISHNA's mouth) 4:13

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māḿ
viddhy akartāram avyayam

Rough translation: 4 varnas are my creation. They are based on guna and karma. Even though I am the creator, I didn't choose your varna for you.

Its all based on your actions.

Now this is the one statement that has caused a lot of disagreement as to whether caste is just profession based or both profession and birth based. Let's not get into that cos that's a long topic and we need TONS of context for that along with going back to read the other verses in Gita.

It doesnt matter, If Rama choses his profession to be a pandit then he would not have called kshatriya is my point.
I still interpret the curse was because of the lie and not because of which caste he belonged to.

I didnt read gita but these 4 liners you quoted proves that it is based on the Karma and not on births. I was kind of confident on that atleast.

I would never consider him as an incarnation of God had he preached it to be based on births. You can consult Gita scholar for more interpretation on other versus where castes are mentioned and get back.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

that sounds about right and in line with my perception.

the caste system is in the religion and the holy scripture, man is destined or born to o certain functions in life and hence born into those castes but can be reborn a higher being based on his deeds in the current life. So while the caste system is there and so is the untouchable concept, I think the rest is just a man made mutation of the religion.

For instance I have heard that Brehmins would pour molten lead into ears of Shudars who heard them pray or something. And that if if an untouchable touched a higher caste hindu, his dharam would be bharasht which I believe is akin to being unfaithful to one's religion.

You can be born in higher castes based on your deeds. And its not necessary to be born in higher castes to attain salvation. Being born in a lower caste can also lead to you ultimate salvation via either penance or if you are incapable of it, via a religious event. Of course, opinions about ultimate salvation this varies for different groups.

As for the molten thing (shocking I know) - here's the thing.

1. It refers to Shudras who INTENTIONALLY hear Vedic recitation and not by mistake.

2. Its mentioned in Dharmashastra (Hindu jurisprudence). But we have to remember that Dharmashastra is NOT the jurisprudence of THIS life but for all births. So it may not be the prescribed punishment for this life but what could happen in hell or something.

For example, Brahmins are not supposed to drink alchohol. If they do, molten iron would be poured over their throat in hell (shocking but its there). Now I think this would be in Dharmashastra but that does NOT mean all Brahmins who drink should be caught and given this punishment in THIS life. Sicne Dharmashastra deals with complete cycle of lives where punishment/rewards span actions across births, it could be referring to that in hell.

3. For treatment of castes or anything, we refer to Itihas (Ramayana, Mahabharatha) on how its done (as gurus says). There is no reference of cruelty towards lower castes in these itihas which is how the treatment should be. Hinduism has some dark aspects (atleast looking at it from a worldly logic) but its not meant to torture or pain the other castes.

I know this post can lead to a huge debate. I am not judging any Brahmins who drink or anything (all my Brahmin friends barring one drink when we hangout). I am just giving an answer on what's what without sugar coating anything.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It doesnt matter, If Rama choses his profession to be a pandit then he would not have called kshatriya is my point.
I still interpret the curse was because of the lie and not because of which caste he belonged to.

I didnt read gita but these 4 liners you quoted proves that it is based on the Karma and not on births. I was kind of confident on that atleast.

I would never consider him as an incarnation of God had he preached it to be based on births. You can consult Gita scholar for more interpretation on other versus where castes are mentioned and get back.

I can ask my bua and give you entire meaning of Gita, Upanishads and more too. But its too time consuming and impossible.

How we interpret isn't what matters. I too don't want caste but thinking that way doesn't become reality. There are texts and explanations for everything.

The 4 lines given in Yajur Veda (by hamzie - see prev page) ALSO prove that God is formless and formless only.

So Rama, Krishna, Kalki avatar are false cos they show God in form. Which automatically imply Gita is false.

See?

Texts can't be taken in isolation.

Anyways, we will be moving in circles. Let's say we disagree and move on.

But a gentle advice...don't read stuff in internet sites or quora which can present a very nice version of what is there in texts.

Facing the reality of what's what is better.

Dig in deep and see what's what. See the reasoning. If you find it crazy, renounce Hinduism. But do the analysis fully and thoroughly. My advice.

Sugar coating religion doesn't work.

Anyways, let's move on now buddy.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

hmm....all the names who have attained knowledge are brahmins, it is that simple. Again it is not a caste but just a classification. just like you categorize someone in your neighbor like " he is a highly educated fellow" or he is a "captain in the army" etc...

So can you name any Shudras who have records of being Brahmins in previous generations or any Brahmins who have been Shudras? Just a few will do. I am sure there must be plenty if it is as you say just a profession or classification.

For example, Alam Lohar became a famous Pakistani singer but his name would suggest he probably came from a family of blacksmiths, hence the name. Easily traceable lineage.

 

[leg-side-flick]

that sounds about right and in line with my perception.

the caste system is in the religion and the holy scripture, man is destined or born to o certain functions in life and hence born into those castes but can be reborn a higher being based on his deeds in the current life. So while the caste system is there and so is the untouchable concept, I think the rest is just a man made mutation of the religion.

For instance I have heard that Brehmins would pour molten lead into ears of Shudars who heard them pray or something. And that if if an untouchable touched a higher caste hindu, his dharam would be bharasht which I believe is akin to being unfaithful to one's religion.

A lot of rubbish had stepped into our religion but thankfully in the last 100 / 150 years, Hinduism has had the strength and intent to correct it... Sati is gone, done and dusted....

Caste system is on its way out, it's reduced manifolds in cities and slowly losing ground in villages, successive governments have enabled laws and the general public opinion is also against it... I think it's a matter of two more generations and this rubbish will be completely out of our system....

We now need to get rid of Godmen, another cancer to society....

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Forced Sati was never part of Hinduism.

Just cos some did it or forced it made it look like it was part of religion. I am glad its eradicated.

Married Kshatriya females have the option of Sati but its not forced.

An example would be -

Pandu's wife madri died after his death.

But his other wife Kunti lived.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

A lot of rubbish had stepped into our religion but thankfully in the last 100 / 150 years, Hinduism has had the strength and intent to correct it... Sati is gone, done and dusted....

Caste system is on its way out, it's reduced manifolds in cities and slowly losing ground in villages, successive governments have enabled laws and the general public opinion is also against it... I think it's a matter of two more generations and this rubbish will be completely out of our system....

We now need to get rid of Godmen, another cancer to society....

Or could we say Hinduism has had the strength to admit it was wrong and adopted from other beliefs which made more sense?

 

[Pantani]

Hindu philosophy essentially is a mystical take on what the western world knows as gnosticism, except with the idea of karmic reincarnation as opposed to random transmigration of souls after death. There are three basic ideas:

1. The material universe and our material existence within it is false and illusionary.
2. Our souls have become imprisoned in this illusionary physical universe, tempted by materialistic desires and fleshy delights.
3. We must reincarnate until we attain the knowledge required to escape from the physical universe and return to the non-physical universe from which we originate.

The other stuff that has been raised in this thread is largely mythology and stories and the like. Shiva's position as a destroyer is misunderstood. He is not a literal destroyer, as in one who drowns the world in a huge flood, or smites the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; but an anti-thesis, a rival, one who plays the role of devil's advocate. This is called the dialectic, and it is present prominently in German philosophy as well. The Hindu 'trinity' is in fact a version of the dialectic. Brahma, the creator, is the thesis. Shiva, the destroyer, is the anti-thesis. And Vishnu is the superior synthesis, combining aspects of both.

 

[adit_sh]

I can ask my bua and give you entire meaning of Gita, Upanishads and more too. But its too time consuming and impossible.

How we interpret isn't what matters. I too don't want caste but thinking that way doesn't become reality. There are texts and explanations for everything.

The 4 lines given in Yajur Veda (by hamzie - see prev page) ALSO prove that God is formless and formless only.

So Rama, Krishna, Kalki avatar are false cos they show God in form. Which automatically imply Gita is false.

See?

Texts can't be taken in isolation.

Anyways, we will be moving in circles. Let's say we disagree and move on.

But a gentle advice...don't read stuff in internet sites or quora which can present a very nice version of what is there in texts.

Facing the reality of what's what is better.

Dig in deep and see what's what. See the reasoning. If you find it crazy, renounce Hinduism. But do the analysis fully and thoroughly. My advice.

Sugar coating religion doesn't work.

Anyways, let's move on now buddy.

Dude, its straight from Krishna's mouth that you just mentioned. Just because it doesnt suit your belief means it cant be taken in isolation.

Who asked you to consider Rama, krishna, Jesus, etc...to be God. Consider them as a human being(possibly god sent or a prophet) with a super minds out there to teach something for humanity. God is still formless and formless only. Christians believe Jesus as son of God and not god himself. I am sorry your logic is flawed. not sure what you want to prove.

did I quote anything from Internet or you kept pasting from those ? well one thing you did right was to paste directly from Gita's verses which proved that castes are not by births and that is enough for others to learn.

Simple advise from my side too - Apply your mind to interpret and arrive at what you think should be right. Not based on what scholars say because we know we have a scholars ranging from nityananda's, asarams, Sringeri/Kanchi/Dwarka to Yogi Aditya nath etc

FYI - This discussion is not about religion but how we should reject the nonsense spread in the name of religion. If you believe God in hinduism says that then logic says better to be an atheist than follow this.

Let me end this discussion by saying now move on and dont reply :-(

 

[Pantani]

AFAIK the caste system wasn't prevelant in ancient India.

The caste system began with the arrival of the Aryans in India. The Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BC. Before the Aryans there were other communities in India of other origins. Among them Negrito, Mongoloid, Austroloid and Dravidian. The Negrito have physical features similar to people of Africa. The Mongoloid have Chinese features. The Austroloids have features similar the aboriginals of Australia. The Dravidians originate from the Mediterranean and they were the largest community in India. When the Aryans arrived in India their main contact was with the Dravidians and the Austroloids. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India.

The Aryans organized among themselves in three groups. The first group was of the warriors and they were called Rajayana, later they changed their name Rajayana to Kshatria. The second group was of the priests and they were called Brahmans. These two groups struggled politically for leadership among the Aryans. In this struggle the Brahmans got to be the leaders of the Aryan society. The third group was of the farmers and craftsmen and they were called Vaisia. The Aryans who conquered and took control over parts of north India subdued the locals and made them their servants. In this process the Vaisias who were the farmers and the craftsmen became the landlords and the businessmen of the society and the locals became the peasants and the craftsmen of the society.

In order to secure their status the Aryans resolved some social and religious rules which, allowed only them to be the priests, warriors and the businesmen of the society.

The Aryan Invasion is a myth.

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/india/debunking-the-aryan-invasion-theory/

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Dude, its straight from Krishna's mouth that you just mentioned. Just because it doesnt suit your belief means it cant be taken in isolation.

Who asked you to consider Rama, krishna, Jesus, etc...to be God. Consider them as a human being(possibly god sent or a prophet) with a super minds out there to teach something for humanity. God is still formless and formless only. Christians believe Jesus as son of God and not god himself. I am sorry your logic is flawed. not sure what you want to prove.

did I quote anything from Internet or you kept pasting from those ? well one thing you did right was to paste directly from Gita's verses which proved that castes are not by births and that is enough for others to learn.

Simple advise from my side too - Apply your mind to interpret and arrive at what you think should be right. Not based on what scholars say because we know we have a scholars ranging from nityananda's, asarams, Sringeri/Kanchi/Dwarka to Yogi Aditya nath etc

FYI - This discussion is not about religion but how we should reject the nonsense spread in the name of religion. If you believe God in hinduism says that then logic says better to be an atheist than follow this.

Let me end this discussion by saying now move on and dont reply :-(

Bro....you got angry when I meant no offense.

1. As for Krishna's mouth, you have twisted my words like crazy. I said everything has to be taken into account (whole of Gita).

2. I gave you the Yajur Veda example which you know is slam bang a Veda and applying your logic of taking a sentence disproves existence of Krishna and Gita and makes God an idiot.

3. I didn't say you quoted from Internet. Just said those aren't reliable for religious aspects cos there is a lot of misinformation.

Simple advise from my side too - Apply your mind to interpret and arrive at what you think should be right. Not based on what scholars say because we know we have a scholars ranging from nityananda's, asarams, Sringeri/Kanchi/Dwarka to Yogi Aditya nath etc

Applying what you or I think is right isn't right. It may look logical from surface but that doesn't mean its the truth. What's there in texts is what's there. Scholar opinions aren't taken blindly (I never said that) but they are taken to analyze stuff.

And no, I don't follow asarams or Kanchi or Nithyanandas.

Religious texts can't be interpreted as we like. We need to find out what's meant by those texts, see explanations and then form opinions.

Again....no disrespect intended in my prev post but for some reason you got annoyed.

Chill.

 

[PCP_1]

4.How many dieties do Hindus believe in and which is the main one?

I don't know about Hinduism but in Islam its Ramadhan and the Christians are really into Atkins at the moment.

 

[Stewie]

I don't know about Hinduism but in Islam its Ramadhan and the Christians are really into Atkins at the moment.

I see what you did there.

 

[leg-side-flick]

Or could we say Hinduism has had the strength to admit it was wrong and adopted from other beliefs which made more sense?

Possible and that's actually what I like about Hinduism, it's willingness to adapt and learn......

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Dude, its straight from Krishna's mouth that you just mentioned. Just because it doesnt suit your belief means it cant be taken in isolation.

Who asked you to consider Rama, krishna, Jesus, etc...to be God. Consider them as a human being(possibly god sent or a prophet) with a super minds out there to teach something for humanity. God is still formless and formless only. Christians believe Jesus as son of God and not god himself. I am sorry your logic is flawed. not sure what you want to prove.

did I quote anything from Internet or you kept pasting from those ? well one thing you did right was to paste directly from Gita's verses which proved that castes are not by births and that is enough for others to learn.

Simple advise from my side too - Apply your mind to interpret and arrive at what you think should be right. Not based on what scholars say because we know we have a scholars ranging from nityananda's, asarams, Sringeri/Kanchi/Dwarka to Yogi Aditya nath etc

FYI - This discussion is not about religion but how we should reject the nonsense spread in the name of religion. If you believe God in hinduism says that then logic says better to be an atheist than follow this.

Let me end this discussion by saying now move on and dont reply :-(

If Krishna is human or prophet, then what about his revelations thatb he is THE LORD of the Universe and his Vishwaroopam avatar (which Arjuna saw)?

This is what happens when we start interpreting things on the fly.

Contradictions keep happening.

See post #137.

FYI - This discussion is not about religion but how we should reject the nonsense spread in the name of religion. If you believe God in hinduism says that then logic says better to be an atheist than follow this.

Fair enough. Its definitely logical. Never denied it.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I don't know about Hinduism but in Islam its Ramadhan and the Christians are really into Atkins at the moment.

I see what you did there.

I didn't get it guys.

 

[Sandeep]

Can you name me a few Brahmins who have become Shudras or Shudras who have become Brahmins due to a change in fortunes of that family line? Surely in that case there must be plenty of untouchables who can trace back their lineage to Brahmin or other high castes before falling on hard times.

Have you heard of the name 'Valmiki'? He was the person who wrote Ramayana. He was of low caste by birth, but went on to become a Brahmin with his knowledge.

 

[Sandeep]

The greatest attributes of Hinduism -

1. It's ability to take criticism
2. It does not put any restrictions on any form of worship
3. Does not matter if you don't give a damn to God, as long as you're doing your duty
4. Karma; by far, the greatest religious concept.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Have you heard of the name 'Valmiki'? He was the person who wrote Ramayana. He was of low caste by birth, but went on to become a Brahmin with his knowledge.

I think Valmiki was a Brahmin by birth who took the wrong path and then came back to the right way.

He was a Brahman by birth belonging to the lineage of Bhrigu. Fate consigned him to a family of robbers which brought him up. Accidental contact with the Saptarsis - the Seven Sages and with the sage Narada changed his life. By the repetition of Ramanama or the name of Ram, he attained the supreme state of a 'maharshi' or great sage. Since a 'valmika' or an anthill had grown over his body during his long period of austerities and poised state of penance, he came to be known as Valmiki.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/gurussaintsofthepast/a/valmiki.htm

Veda Vyas was a mix but considered Brahmin.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The greatest attributes of Hinduism -

1. It's ability to take criticism
2. It does not put any restrictions on any form of worship
3. Does not matter if you don't give a damn to God, as long as you're doing your duty
4. Karma; by far, the greatest religious concept.

Yep.

While there are dark stuff in Hinduism (atleast looking at it from our point of view), nothing explains inequalities of the world (why some suffer while others are blessed) better than Karma.

 

[Stewie]

Possible and that's actually what I like about Hinduism, it's willingness to adapt and learn......

While I can appreciate your willingness to admit to this, I think this is what most Muslims would want to hear.


See with us followers of the Abrahamic faiths, the divinity of our spiritual beliefs matter a lot. If it is not absolute, it means it is not the word of God. And if it is not the word of God, it means its man made and subject to human interpretation.

You see this school of thought even more with Islam. In fact one of the reasons, why we consider Judism and Christianity to be dissimilar to Islam, (even though they have the same roots) is because we feel those two religions have been corrupted by man over time, chopped and changed based on the individual needs and preferences and hence do not maintain the original form the message was in as God intended when He bestowed it upon Moses, Jesus, etc.

This is a big debate here as well, but that is why THE LAST PROPHET status of Muhammed (PBUH) is so important to us because we believe our religion is in its absolute complete form with Quran and Fiqh. Our Holy Book has been the same, our laws have been pretty much the same, and they cover most aspects of human life. In Islam, you believe in them without question, because it is a matter of faith,.

In Hinduism, it seems the direct opposite, seems like every poster has his own interpretation and where everyone seems to agree is its aspect of flexibility. To me it sounds like I can do whatever I want and can still be a Hindu. Very arbitrary guidelines and
laws

 

[Stewie]

By the way my last post is not mean to cause any emotional harm or to offend anyone. I just shared my personal observation, which might be inaccurate and I look forward to reading more on the subject from the Hindu posters here.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

While I can appreciate your willingness to admit to this, I think this is what most Muslims would want to hear.


See with us followers of the Abrahamic faiths, the divinity of our spiritual beliefs matter a lot. If it is not absolute, it means it is not the word of God. And if it is not the word of God, it means its man made and subject to human interpretation.

You see this school of thought even more with Islam. In fact one of the reasons, why we consider Judism and Christianity to be dissimilar to Islam, (even though they have the same roots) is because we feel those two religions have been corrupted by man over time, chopped and changed based on the individual needs and preferences and hence do not maintain the original form the message was in as God intended when He bestowed it upon Moses, Jesus, etc.

This is a big debate here as well, but that is why THE LAST PROPHET status of Muhammed (PBUH) is so important to us because we believe our religion is in its absolute complete form with Quran and Fiqh. Our Holy Book has been the same, our laws have been pretty much the same, and they cover most aspects of human life. In Islam, you believe in them without question, because it is a matter of faith,.

In Hinduism, it seems the direct opposite, seems like every poster has his own interpretation and where everyone seems to agree is its aspect of flexibility. To me it sounds like I can do whatever I want and can still be a Hindu. Very arbitrary guidelines and
laws

Some posters may get annoyed but its true that Hinduism as it is considered now doesn't make much sense. I don't understand the logic of how everything is considered ok and how that's supposed to be cool. If its the word of God, there needs to be rules and guidance.

The problem is that, unlike Islam or Christianity or other religion, we Hindus don't have complete knowledge about texts (this includes me too) so this leads to a lot of confusion. The texts are vast which is another issue.

The whole Hindusim concept makes perfect sense but the details are messed up.

At its core, its pretty simple (I think cricketjoshila explained it nice):

1. There is one God. Vaishnavites consider it to be Vishnu. Shaivites consider it to be trinity.
2. There is a cycle of birth and death based on karma.
3. Souls go through this cycle till they attain eternal salvation.

This is the core.

The details are based on different sect's views.

The good thing is that even if a person isn't following the right religion or God's path, it doesn't matter. All is not lost. Its just one life. You will eventually get to God or get the knowledge of God one day.

But as CricketCartoon says....we all discuss religions cos we are curious and not because we are impressed with it. If we are impressed with it, we would convert to that religion.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

By the way my last post is not mean to cause any emotional harm or to offend anyone. I just shared my personal observation, which might be inaccurate and I look forward to reading more on the subject from the Hindu posters here.

No offense taken bro.

Yours was a very respectful post and those who disagree can reply back with their logical arguments.

 

[PCP_1]

In Hinduism, it seems the direct opposite, seems like every poster has his own interpretation and where everyone seems to agree is its aspect of flexibility. To me it sounds like I can do whatever I want and can still be a Hindu. Very arbitrary guidelines and
laws

Actually thats a very good way of looking at life.

Hey, your guess is as good as mine, lets just re-evaluate things and better them as we go along.

We could admit that nothing is the absolute truth and could adjust and modify the laws according to the necessity of the times. There would be no absolute control of religious authorities and their rulings wouldnt be final as there would be no divine untouchable commandments which man could not tinker with.

If youre not ok with these arbitary laws, cannot think for yourself and everything should be spoon fed to you then you can't go wrong with the Abrahamic or any other religion for that matter.

 

[speed]

THE different opinions is most likely due to not having a unified theology, also the lack of studying religion, Also because different hindu scriptures were written 100 of yrs apart this is why you have so much difference in opinions.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Actually thats a very good way of looking at life.

Hey, your guess is as good as mine, lets just re-evaluate things and better them as we go along.

We could admit that nothing is the absolute truth and could adjust and modify the laws according to the necessity of the times. There would be no absolute control of religious authorities and their rulings wouldnt be final as there would be no divine untouchable commandments which man could not tinker with.

If youre not ok with these arbitary laws, cannot think for yourself and everything should be spoon fed to you then you can't go wrong with the Abrahamic or any other religion for that matter.

Bro....what you suggest is better when we are finding something new where anyone's guess could be right.

What Hinduism has evolved into is that they simply ignore everything and JUSTIFY every damn thing. Whatever you do, it doesn't matter. There is no effort made to consolidate all texts and see the common denominator but all efforts are made to legalize everything.

How is this logic in any sense?

The fact is that Hinduism the way its used now is just a religious spin on "I believe in humanity" argument (nothing wrong with it - humanity is anyday more logcal than any religion). But point is that - if you truly believe that, why not cut the religious BS and say I consider humanity more important and anyone could be the God instead of going the Hinduism route and confusing yourself. Why not let God find your true intentions cos that's what you say Hinduism is all about?

Also we can't define those who follow Abrahamic faiths as sheep and those from Hinduism as thinkers. That's like test purists considering those who watch only Test cricket as more knowledgeable.

 

[Stewie]

Actually thats a very good way of looking at life.

Hey, your guess is as good as mine, lets just re-evaluate things and better them as we go along.

We could admit that nothing is the absolute truth and could adjust and modify the laws according to the necessity of the times. There would be no absolute control of religious authorities and their rulings wouldnt be final as there would be no divine untouchable commandments which man could not tinker with.

If youre not ok with these arbitary laws, cannot think for yourself and everything should be spoon fed to you then you can't go wrong with the Abrahamic or any other religion for that matter.

In someways, you are right but then in some, I believe there should be a bottom line. I am all for adjustments with changing times, but it is such a sensitive area that there should be guidelines in doing so in any faith. For instance, in Islam there is the concept of Ijma or Qiyas. Ijma is something undertaken by the highly recognized and acknowledged Muslim authorities of the times. The scholars get together, debate and come up with their ruling. I do not see anything wrong with it because I believe I am not in a good position to come up with a ruling on a debatable topic.

On the flip side, I dont want any aira ghaira mulla issuing fatwas left and right either.

There are certain aspects of Islam where I do feel that there should be some sort of a modern day interpretation and amendment but then again, Allah knows best.

I just feel that there HAS TO BE some level of control and decorum to such matters and matters should not be left open for interpretation to the masses.

The apostacy issue is one sticking point. The freedoms of women is another one. Once again, my opinions are based on my limited understanding of our faith. Some may disagree with me.

As a man of science, living in the west, I struggle with such stuff every day. But I also happen to believe in the absolute nature of the important postulates of Islam. I have blind faith when it comes to most of it, but there are some grey areas.

This is where Hindus seems most comfortable with. Like SIF said, its either because the Hindu scripture is huge and very little people know it back and front or there was never a concerted effort to institutionalize it over the years as we saw with Abrahamic faiths.

Either way, this is a very interesting and productive debate. Its amazing what internet anonymity can sometimes bring the best and sometimes the worst out of people and bring them to the table to debate such things we cannot fathom debating in real life.

 

[PCP_1]

In someways, you are right but then in some, I believe there should be a bottom line. I am all for adjustments with changing times, but it is such a sensitive area that there should be guidelines in doing so in any faith. For instance, in Islam there is the concept of Ijma or Qiyas. Ijma is something undertaken by the highly recognized and acknowledged Muslim authorities of the times. The scholars get together, debate and come up with their ruling. I do not see anything wrong with it because I believe I am not in a good position to come up with a ruling on a debatable topic.

On the flip side, I dont want any aira ghaira mulla issuing fatwas left and right either.

There are certain aspects of Islam where I do feel that there should be some sort of a modern day interpretation and amendment but then again, Allah knows best.

I just feel that there HAS TO BE some level of control and decorum to such matters and matters should not be left open for interpretation to the masses.

The apostacy issue is one sticking point. The freedoms of women is another one. Once again, my opinions are based on my limited understanding of our faith. Some may disagree with me.

As a man of science, living in the west, I struggle with such stuff every day. But I also happen to believe in the absolute nature of the important postulates of Islam. I have blind faith when it comes to most of it, but there are some grey areas.

This is where Hindus seems most comfortable with. Like SIF said, its either because the Hindu scripture is huge and very little people know it back and front or there was never a concerted effort to institutionalize it over the years as we saw with Abrahamic faiths.

Either way, this is a very interesting and productive debate. Its amazing what internet anonymity can sometimes bring the best and sometimes the worst out of people and bring them to the table to debate such things we cannot fathom debating in real life.

Yes the internet promotes open discussion but it is very rare that it changes the opinion of someone. I have discussed this very points in real life too although with dire consequences. I have slowed down with age and mostly other responsibilities.

However just for discussions sake, you seem to be sitting on the fence on most important issues like many posters here.

On the one hand you claim to be a man of science and talk about the need for reform on many issues but on the other you put it all down to having blind faith and not having enough "knowledge" to decide for yourself. On one side you want the scholars of Islam to discuss and determine everything for you and on the other you're vary of Mullahs. You seem to want the best of both worlds. Mamoon and a few others come to.kind. Atleast others like TGK and Chacha know what they want and have the cojones ro stick with it.

Also as SIF mentioned, once its about religion no matter how good your intentions, common sense goes out the window. The written word must be followed no matter what the price to ourselves and others. You believe that you are an inferior being and do not have the intellect or willpower to change something that you think is wrong and is predetermined by a higher entity.

Systematic indoctrination and pride also come into play. If well educated and reasonable people who have been living in a free soceity like yourself can defend these outdated ideas and burdens of the forefathers then there is no hope for the others.

 

[adit_sh]

THE different opinions is most likely due to not having a unified theology, also the lack of studying religion, Also because different hindu scriptures were written 100 of yrs apart this is why you have so much difference in opinions.

Mostly due to lack of knowledge and cherry pick of concepts. None of us or rather most of us have ever studied vedas or Gita. there is a huge difference also between reading, studying and rightly interpreting. We may pick few things here and there and argue but definitely not the way to do.

I dont think even the scholars of today know the religion as much as they did few decades/centuries back. The religion heads preaching seems to be so disconnect to current youths that they now move to a different way of preaching called spirituality and thats the current trend

 

[speed]

who are the famous hindu scholars of today?

 

[adit_sh]

who are the famous hindu scholars of today?

dude, difficult question to answer let me try

Kanchi Paramcharya was the last one that I know - He died in late 90s.
Sringeri ( in Karnataka) head is also pretty good.

before this we used to have the great swami Vivekananda or his teacher Ramakrishna Paramahamsa etc.... but none of those stalwarts today unfortunately.

There are some scholars in Haridwar and Himalayas to be very good but nameless. Something like the book "monk who sold his ferari" types scholars. very difficult to find them.

may be SIF or others can throw more names but I am not aware of them.

Now the latest fashion is spirituality and yoga
- Jaggi Vasudev
- Sri Sri Ravi shanker

etc...

 

[speed]

dude, difficult question to answer let me try

Kanchi Paramcharya was the last one that I know - He died in late 90s.
Sringeri ( in Karnataka) head is also pretty good.

before this we used to have the great swami Vivekananda or his teacher Ramakrishna Paramahamsa etc.... but none of those stalwarts today unfortunately.

There are some scholars in Haridwar and Himalayas to be very good but nameless. Something like the book "monk who sold his ferari" types scholars. very difficult to find them.

may be SIF or others can throw more names but I am not aware of them.

Now the latest fashion is spirituality and yoga
- Jaggi Vasudev
- Sri Sri Ravi shanker

etc...

Is sai baba considered a scholar?

 

[adit_sh]

Is sai baba considered a scholar?

He is considered as God himself by many and there are many sai baba temples in India and around the world now.