What would you criticize about Hindu theodicy?

[hinduwoman]

I don't mean the bits about sati and snake worship etc.

I am speaking about philosophical justifications about the theology.
I have noticed that it is very different from Abrahamic religions and frankly the apologetics are superior.

So what am I missing?

[hinduwoman]

Forgot to add, except the obvious --- prove such things exist.

[adren@line]

Which theology?

Advaita: Nothing much to criticize. I do not get the inclusion of God/Goddess worship and pujas at Vedanta centers. Perhaps they do it to attract "regular" Hindus.

Buddhism: not much to criticize. Perhaps folk Buddhism is too similar to mainstream Hinduism so the critique would be the same.

Dvaita: confuses me, but ultimately makes more sense than any Abrahamic dualistic theology. Atleast the Dvaitans have enough sense to state that God didn't create anything, but simply exists.

Mainstream Hinduism: No philosophy at all, too ritualistic and symbolic. But then again the average person does not care about philosophy so in that regard it probably works.

In my opinion, any non-dualistic/monistic philosophy represents the most rational and scientifically-minded path (this includes everything from what came from the Indians, to the Greeks, to Sufi Islam. In the end, its all the same), as theism is too fantastic and irrational and pure, philosophically-inept atheism is rather simplistic and a conclusion any one can arrive at regardless of intellect.

[aupmanyav]

What do we have to prove? Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Durga, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Hanuman, and others, are main characters of our mythology. In their actions, good or bad, we see the guidance of our life, to 'dharma' (duty and righteous action). We have a plethora of minor characters, Prahlad, Ravana, Kamsa, Vidur, etc. and the great Badarayana, Vedavyasa. Philosophy, ethics, poetry, world vision, and whatever else you want to have, everything there.

[perfectbite]

All collected and enforced views become insular and self endorsing and along with such view comes corruption.

Hindu India is sorting itself out and addressing injustice and I cannot fault them for that.

I also cannot fault them for their acceptance of a plethora of religious views.

What I do fault their spiritual philosophers for is taking the effort of spiritual philosophy to be the equivalent of spiritual effort when even the deeply spiritual intellectual is not adequate enough to be the truly spiritual but they seem to think it is equivalent and they have become spiritually stultified and dead ended as in talk of brahman is not seriously trying being one with brahman.

We have a lot of those in the West.

In recent times if Rajneesh and Maharesh and the Hari Krishna guy were the best that spiritual Hindu India had to offer then Hindu India has much more work to do.

Was Buddhism and the language of Buddhism from 2,500 years ago the only worthwhile spiritually valuable thing that India exported?

Sanskrit is not a completely spiritually competent language but Pali was.

[aupmanyav]

In recent times if Rajneesh and Maharesh and the Hari Krishna guy were the best that spiritual Hindu India had to offer then Hindu India has much more work to do.Hindus do not consider Rajaneesh as hindu (with his HIV check, he was Nemi Chand Jain) and barely tolerate Maharshi (with his levitation techniques) and Hare-Krishnas (with their drums and dances). They were export material, not for internal consumption.

[Yeshi]

They were export material, not for internal consumption.

What about Sai Baba?

[premjan]

The main theodicy in Hinduism is the theory of reincarnation. If bad things happen to you it is because of bad things you did in your prior lives. This is basically OK if you're well off - for the poor it tends to make them passive rather than activist. In this sense it can be criticized, assuming that action is better for the poor. Then again the basis for criticism has to be more solid than religion and sociology is not sound enough, probably to do this - comparison with non-Hindu cultures might be adequate though.

[aupmanyav]

Personally speaking I consider Arya Samaj, Sai Baba and Swaminarayan as renegades. Some day they would break away from hinduism.

Premjan, there would be poor all the time. Hinduism can make even the poor happy. Capitalism cannot.

[Civil1z@tion]

Personally speaking I consider Arya Samaj, Sai Baba and Swaminarayan as renegades. Some day they would break away from hinduism.

Premjan, there would be poor all the time. Hinduism can make even the poor happy. Capitalism cannot.

The problem is that the reincarnation faiths, like Hinduism, discourage social mobility which might lead to more happiness. If you are born poor, then obviously you did something wrong in your last life to deserve it. Thus trying to raise oneself out of poverty might even be morally wrong because your past actions mean that poverty is your punishment and you are trying to circumvent divine retirbution. Capitalism, ends up with a smaller poor class and more (though certainly not perfect) social mobility for that class than traditional Indian culture. Thus capitalism, which gives the real and attainable (though admitedly not easy to reach) goal of rising out of poverty is probably superior to Hinduism which discourages that rise and gives a delusion of reincarnation solving your problems after you are conviently dead and not in position to complain if it doesn't happen.

To be perfectly fair, the idea of heaven works the same way in Abrahamic faiths, but this does not mean that Hinduism cannot be faulted for the same problem.

[premjan]

True - Hinduism while it does propagate capitalism, tends to make it a product of the capitalist class rather than other classes, so it justifies class division. Then again, capitalism over time tends to lead to class divisions, unless there are some safeguards against that, you could say Hinduism co-opts the human tendency towards class formation.

But on the whole, it is foolish to rely on religion or capitalism as a recipe for what a human being should do or what should make them happy. Create meaning for yourself - truth is a pathless land.

[J.F. Gaul]

True - Hinduism while it does propagate capitalism, tends to make it a product of the capitalist class rather than other classes, so it justifies class division.

Actually, I would argue that there are very few, if any, elements of capitalism encouraged by Hinduism. For example, one of the cornerstones of capitalism is that everyone tries to acquire more to advance their position in society; Hinduism, on the other hand, holds that salvation lies in one satisfactorily fulfilling one's karmic duty in life. One advances in the next life only by doing all that is required of one in the current karmic position of this life.

[premjan]

You're looking at capitalism as a social rather than commercial ideology which I don't think it is. For instance Hinduism has a dedicated capitalist class called the Vaishyas (Gandhi was one), which explains why a poor country can still produce 4 out of the 10 richest men in the world.

[J.F. Gaul]

Yes, there is a capitalist class, but my main point is that it is difficult for capitalism to be truly mobilized in a cultural system that discourages social mobility.

[premjan]

I don't deny that the caste system was a rather sorry excuse, and luckily western value systems have helped us to ditch it. Islam to an extent too, though the cure is almost worse than the disease there, as Hinduism, apart from the caste system is relatively liberal compared to most religions.

[Revolutionary]

What Hindu theodicy? Does Hinduism claim the existence of an omnimax deity? If yes, then what is the theodicy? If no, then it doesn't need one.

[premjan]

Hinduism tends to believe in a middle world which contains good and evil. The deity is not omnimax (except in dvaita, which considers Krishna as omnimax - but Krishna himself says he is nature incarnate), nature is omnimax. There are some rules of moral cause and effect though described as karma.

[conradg]

What I do fault their spiritual philosophers for is taking the effort of spiritual philosophy to be the equivalent of spiritual effort when even the deeply spiritual intellectual is not adequate enough to be the truly spiritual but they seem to think it is equivalent and they have become spiritually stultified and dead ended as in talk of brahman is not seriously trying being one with brahman.

We have a lot of those in the West.

In recent times if Rajneesh and Maharesh and the Hari Krishna guy were the best that spiritual Hindu India had to offer then Hindu India has much more work to do.

Well, most Indians consider those guys to be the worst of Hindu India, not the best. If you want to judge Hinduism by the best it has to offer, you ought to look at Ramana Maharhsi, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Sivananda, Poonja Swami, Nisargadatta, Anandamayi Ma, etc. There's a plethora of great Hindu spiritual figures over the last century who hardly get any press in the west at all.

The kind of mistake you are mentioning, of confusing intellectual philosophy with spiritual understanding, has long been understood in India. In the west, not so much, though there's certainly much progress being made in private. It just happens that most of the people who gather most of the attention are the most immature and desperate types, which is all too often the case throughout history. The real gems require patience and serious inquiry.

[conradg]

The main theodicy in Hinduism is the theory of reincarnation. If bad things happen to you it is because of bad things you did in your prior lives. This is basically OK if you're well off - for the poor it tends to make them passive rather than activist. In this sense it can be criticized, assuming that action is better for the poor. Then again the basis for criticism has to be more solid than religion and sociology is not sound enough, probably to do this - comparison with non-Hindu cultures might be adequate though.

For me to criticize Hindu theodicy I'd have to first admit that I accept the general truths of reincarnation and karma. Where I differ with Hindu theodicy is that it tends to reinforce conventional notions of punishment and reward. Thus, good people get good karma, and bad people get bad karma. I think this is a gross oversimplification which doesn't explain evil adequately. Personally, I don't believe that karma works this way, nor do many Hindus of a more subtle bent.

The notion that works best in Hinduism, as far as I am concerned, is that "attention creates destiny". Thus, people who put their attention on evil things tend to create a destiny for themselves that is evil. THe problem is, this applies not just to people who do evil, but people who fight evil, because fighting evil requires us to put our attention on evil. Thus, people who are fighting evil are also perpetuating it, by putting their attention on evil. This is the problem with the duality of attention, it cycles back and forth between good and evil like a tennis ball being smashed from one court to the next. The concept of "good" creates the concept of "evil", and once that is done, each perpetuates the other. So it's not as simple as good karma going to good people. People who put their attention on "good" do create good karma for themselves, in the sense that their attention goes towards "good" things. But hidden within that is the truth that putting attention on "good" creates evil as wel, and so one who puts attention on good has to end up fighting evil, and the more they do so, the more ensnared in evil they become, until the perhaps become evil as well. So we are all in a drama in which sometimes we play "good" roles, and sometimes we play "evil" roles. The solution offered to this theodicy is to transcend good and evil, not to try with all one's might to bring about some final and complete triumph of good over evil. That never happens, and simply perpetuates the conflict.

Also, in regards to reincarnation, I don't beleive that it ever involves punishment for past actions. I believe that all reincarnation is voluntary, and that we are well aware of the very bad things that are likely to happen in each birth we take, including becoming the victims of evil. I think people willingly take on those roles in life for the sheer value of it, the way people watch movies with great suffering in them for the cathartic value of it. It's just that people who have commited evil acts in past lives will often feel the need to experience the other side of evil, to learn what it feels like to be the victim rather than the perpetrator of evil acts. And vice-versa. In the final analysis, there are no good guys or bad guys, and there is no such thing as metaphysical evil. Karma is not punishment, it is a learning process.

[premjan]

That's a really great analysis I think.

[aupmanyav]

If you are born poor, then obviously you did something wrong in your last life to deserve it.A grave misconception. It is not that shudras were/are always poor. King Harisschandra of Varanasi, when he gave all his possessions in charity, took up employment with the Chandala of Manikarnika Ghat (funeral ground). He was rich in mythology, he is rich even now. A huge number of shudras are blindingly rich today (with numbered accounts in Switzerland and tax heavens). They can employ legions of brahmins, thanks to modern politics. Examples are Jagjivan Ram's family, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh, Mayawati, Karunanidhi, Ram Bilas Paswan, Shibu Soren, etc.

There was no bar on becoming rich. What hinduism taught was the value of contentment, to shudras and to others, brahmins too, who were asked to live on society's charity, and the Kshatriyas, who were encouraged to give away their life for protection of the country on whatever paltry salary their king gave to them, it was their 'dharma'. The traders (Vaishyas) were encouraged to give their wealth in charity, no better use of money was envisaged. Happiness through fulfillment of their duty rather than through riches. Capitalism does not do that.

[aupmanyav]

Well, most Indians consider those guys to be the worst of Hindu India, not the best.. The real gems require patience and serious inquiry.You got it, Conrad. I do not know how Perfectbite missed it.

Evil, where is evil in hinduism? Even Ravana was a great scholar and highly moral person (of course, there are many different stories). He did merge in Rama on death. It is all Brahman, even Ghengis and Hitler.

[premjan]

Well, there is one part of the caste system which was quite definitely bad - untouchability, but it is not much significant today.

[conradg]

Well, most Indians consider those guys to be the worst of Hindu India, not the best.. The real gems require patience and serious inquiry.You got it, Conrad. I do not know how Perfectbite missed it.

Evil, where is evil in hinduism? Even Ravana was a great scholar and highly moral person (of course, there are many different stories). He did merge in Rama on death. It is all Brahman, even Ghengis and Hitler.

Theodicy refers to how a religion explains the existence of evil and tragic, random loss, even when it posits creation as an act of a benign and loving deity. Hinduism of course doesn't have a single answer to this, but a big part is karma. It suggests that people who are the victims of evil or random tragedy somehow are reaping the fruits of past bad actions on their part.

Now, if one goes deeper into Vedantic explanations for how evil comes to exist at all, it is usually seen as a consequence of dualism, in that when people lose the consciousness of Absolute unity, they see the world as composed of opposites. This gives rise to both good and evil. However, evil is not seen as an absolute, but only as an illusion of duality. When duality is resolved through transcendence of the ego, then both good and evil disappear. That is how Ravana gets enlightened when he crashes into Rama and dies. Even evil is just a dualism, without intrinsic reality.

Another explanation for evil would be the Advaitic snake and rope illusion. On a dark road, a rope lying on the ground appears to be a snake, and inspires great fear in us. When we bring a light along, however, we see that it was just a rope, not a snake at all. There never was any evil to dispel or fight, it was just a result of our ignorance and overactive imagination. Similarly, what we perceive as evil in this world is, in reality, not harmful at all.

[TruthPrevails]

Theodicy refers to how a religion explains the existence of evil and tragic, random loss, even when it posits creation as an act of a benign and loving deity. Hinduism of course doesn't have a single answer to this, but a big part is karma. Based on the article on theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) it would appear that it is more specific to Abrahamic religions. If a benevolent (perfect goodness) creator/God created everything that exist, how did evil exists.

Perhaps theodicy do not apply to mainstream hinduism where followers are expected to do one's dharma and works out one's karma, plus;

Now, if one goes deeper into Vedantic explanations for how evil comes to exist at all, it is usually seen as a consequence of dualism, in that when people lose the consciousness of Absolute unity, they see the world as composed of opposites. This gives rise to both good and evil. However, evil is not seen as an absolute, but only as an illusion of duality. When duality is resolved through transcendence of the ego, then both good and evil disappear. That is how Ravana gets enlightened when he crashes into Rama and dies. Even evil is just a dualism, without intrinsic reality.

[perfectbite]

Well, most Indians consider those guys to be the worst of Hindu India, not the best.. The real gems require patience and serious inquiry.You got it, Conrad. I do not know how Perfectbite missed it.

Evil, where is evil in hinduism? Even Ravana was a great scholar and highly moral person (of course, there are many different stories). He did merge in Rama on death. It is all Brahman, even Ghengis and Hitler.

I didn't miss it at all. Hinduism is societal centric and Hindus are made to be Hindu from the taking in of their mother's milk. That is what defines a culture.

I have read some of the named Hindu spiritual folks and to me they are all much of a muchness.

To look at Westerners and say "They just don't get it" is to expect those of other cultures to become Hindu when it is almost gleefully accepted by Hindus that one must be born into Hinduism to understand it.

A few years ago I met a woman at a picnic who had studied Hindu spirituality at an Ashram in India for four years and when I took it for granted that she would know that the West has five senses where Hinduism has six senses (skandhas) she drew a blank. She didn't know that. No one had told her that.

Now honestly, how could one study Hindu spirituality with the intent of comprehending something about the Hindu spiritual view without understanding or being made to understand that for Hinduism the person is a property of the senses and that for the West the senses are a property of the person. Well Duh!

To suck one's teeth and say that 'well ... perhaps her Ashram wasn't that good' smacks of apologetics.

For instance; the term karma has been used often lately in this forum but the term karma has no real meaning without the idea of Dharma which I have only seen mentioned with reference to performing one's societal duty when the term dharma is a multifold word that also means truth and, in the case of its relation to karma, also means intent and by association the truth of one's intent.

Are Westerners continuously being given such background in the Hindu psyche by Hinduism? No they are not, others have had to really look at the cause of the disjoint.

Ya know, in the arena of awakened mind, being only deeply spiritual doesn't cut it.

I say that Sanskrit, like English, is an insufficient spiritual language and I say that Pali, even with its delineations upon delineations, is a truly spiritually encompassing language but I am a practical theologian and not a Hindu or a Hindu scholar.

I got it alright Aupmanyav (although your post jogged my memory, I knew all the stories you outlined in your post, not one of them was new to me) but that whole spiritual body of work that is essentially based on mythological characters does not have the resounding, in depth meaning for me that it has for you or any Hindu.

Has it ever occurred to any Hindu that although interesting the stuff is just too dense or too intertwined or too societally centric to be of use away from Hinduism or that the folks I mentioned are generally considered by the West to be money grubbing charlatans who, in their clownish behaviour (like Rajneesh saying that life is a lila and had his followers buy him twelve, count 'em 12, Rolls Royce cars) have cheapened Hindu spirituality and that Hindu spirituality has little weight in the West because of such claimed to be bona fide truly spiritual antics?

Does Hindu India think that the West is really stupid because it certainly seems that way. The Hindu Indian spiritual rejects go the West where they will become gurus.

The word 'guru' here is a joke. (Especially after Rajneesh) No-one here wants anything to do with being a guru or even to be seen as a guru. Even computer gurus are uncomfortable with the term and will say 'I am not a guru'.

Bagwan and Baghavan and even Shri are words that no-one uses although they may be familiar with them.

Like I said, the most recent, decent spiritual export from Hindu India wasn't Hinduism, it was Buddhism,

[aupmanyav]

Let me first start with a smiley to mollify you. :) You are right, hinduism was not designed for export. Hindu beliefs range from the polytheist extravaganza to bare-bones 'advaita' like mine. We do not expect the western cultures to turn hindu, on the contrary, one of our books (Geeta, what else) encourages them to remain western. If one does not get hinduism, they could get judaism, christianity, or islam in the right way (accept differences, live and let live - you have informed them of the good news, now let them be, your job is over, from then on it is between God and them).

Skandhas are not necessacy for normal life. To know that, a lot of effort would be required with the books or a pathshala (school) with a teacher who is not engaged in ashram business. You are right (as usual) that a person is the property of senses. Truth is an inseparable part of 'dharma'. 'Satyam dharmah sadashrita' (In truth, 'dharma' finds good dependence - no 'dharma' without truth). Karma as in buddhism means (or even in christianity - if you have looked at a woman with lust, verily, I say you have sinned) 'manasa (mind), vacha (speech), karmanah (action). The indic religions know this very well.

An awakened mind does not only require spirituality, but also some knowledge of science. How would be a mind awakened without the knowledge of science. Sanskrit is just as encompassing as Pali. When you people (buddhists or with buddhist interest) mention Pali terms, my mind quickly finds the equivalent Sanskrit terms. The stories, sure, are immensely important to us (they may not be your westerners). They are an illustration of good and bad, like in the comics; and we take guidance from them. It is immaterial whether the stories are historical or not (most of them are not). It has not occured to us that the stuff is just too dense or too intertwined or too societtally centric, because, as I said, hinduism was not really meant for export.

We too consider that the money grubbing charlatans and their clownish behaviour (Rajneesh, btw, had 92 Rolls-Royce cars) have cheapened hinduism and wonder why the westerners do not realize this. I think, west is just as stupid as our own people. Bagwan and Baghavan, Sri, and Ma are passe, now we have Sri Sri also (though he is perhaps better than others in the mould of Krishnamurthy). I do not deny that Buddhism is a decent spiritual export from India, we value it just as much, though I differ from it (perhaps my view is closer to Sarvastivadins, though I do not know much about it, even Wikipedia does not help). Smiley again. :)

[premjan]

Hinduism is perhaps an ethos - though that is another ill-defined word. Buddhism is more of a discipline. They are slightly different animals.

[hinduwoman]

They were export material, not for internal consumption.

What about Sai Baba?

He has got you there.
Even if you aupmanyav do not consider him to be a real guru masses of Hindus do. They are as silly about him as many Americans over teleevangelists.

[hinduwoman]

Perhaps theodicy do not apply to mainstream hinduism where followers are expected to do one's dharma and works out one's karma,



That is the problem.
Theology simply says all is Brahman --- so there is nothing to really criticize.

Theodicy relies on karma which puts the blame on individuals. If you accept reincarnation then this is a rational ethical system. Whether this leads to lack of social mobility is a matter of temperament. You can accept your lot in life or you can try to improve it and do good works to get a better deal in next life.

P.S according to many sociologists doing field work the notion of karma dictating birth is most prevelant among brahmins (why am I not surprised?) while many of the lower castes do not accept it though they seem ready to accept various things that happened in their life as results of previous karma.

[hinduwoman]

Perfectbite, good post

[aupmanyav]

He has got you there. Even if you aupmanyav do not consider him to be a real guru masses of Hindus do. They are as silly about him as many Americans over teleevangelists.For me the only avatara after Buddha would be Kalki, 427,000 years later. I am a traditionalist, though an atheist. No doubt, they are silly, believing in upstart Gods and avataras, Sai Baba and Swaminarayan. I differ from them in many ways.

[aupmanyav]

..because, as I said, hinduism was not really meant for export.They did not even have the equivalent of 'religion' and had no name for their beliefs.

[Kharakov]

I am speaking about philosophical justifications about the theology.
I have noticed that it is very different from Abrahamic religions and frankly the apologetics are superior.

So what am I missing?
I don't know. Ever criticize an amoeba? I prefer to praise them: "gloop blorp, burble!"

[conradg]

Perhaps theodicy do not apply to mainstream hinduism where followers are expected to do one's dharma and works out one's karma

I'm not sure there's such a thing as mainstream Hinduism. There are many different views within Hinduism, and some of them are of the dvaitic, creator-God variety that would have to explain the existence of evil somehow, in the same way that Abrahamic religions do, except without being confined to monotheistic concepts of God. The problem of why evil exists if God is good and loving exists in almost all religions that have a positive view of God. I just think that religions which presume reincarnation to be the case have a huge advantage in creating rational theodicies, in that it allows for reciprocity between good and evil, and a process for slowly learning to go beyond them, rather than a one-time shot with little chance to change one's course.

[TruthPrevails]

Perhaps theodicy do not apply to mainstream hinduism where followers are expected to do one's dharma and works out one's karma

I'm not sure there's such a thing as mainstream Hinduism. It is difficult to nail Hinduism to something specific. I just mentioned 'mainstream' to cut short and avoid the lengthy description. Note,

Hinduism is a family of religions, a vast and heterogeneous religious tradition without a common leader, a common center or a common body of teachings.

Beliefs
Hinduism refers to the religious mainstream which evolved organically spread over large territory marked by significant ethnic and cultural diversity. This mainstream evolved both by innovation from within, and by assimilation of external traditions or cults into the Hindu fold. The result is an enormous variety of religious traditions, ranging from innumerable small, unsophisticated cults to the major religious movements with millions of adherents spread over the entire subcontinent. The identification of Hinduism as an independent religion separate from Buddhism or Jainism consequently hinges on the affirmation of adherents that it is such.[21]

Prominent themes in (but not restricted to) Hindu beliefs include Dharma (ethics/duties), Samsāra (The continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth), Karma (action and subsequent reaction), Moksha (liberation from samsara), and the various Yogas (paths or practices).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

[conradg]

I didn't miss it at all. Hinduism is societal centric and Hindus are made to be Hindu from the taking in of their mother's milk. That is what defines a culture.

I have read some of the named Hindu spiritual folks and to me they are all much of a muchness.

With all due respect, this statement alone tells me you just don't know much about modern Hindu teachings and either haven't read them or don't "much" understand them. There's many, many distinctions and differences within them, and they include far more than the names I mentioned. The 20th century has actually been something of a rennaissance of Hindu spirituality, with a whole lot of truly great figures arising simultaneously and yet not in any coordinated pattern. Mahesh Yogi, Rajneesh, and their ilk are not among them. You are simply responding to the exploitive, bowlderized version of Hindu teachings.

I would also disagree greatly that the only meaningful Indian exports to the west have been Buddhist. That I think is merely a personal prejudice on your part. I have my own prejudices as well, but I think it's easy to point out that Buddhism has its own problem with pop-versions that have little relevance to the real meanings of Buddhism which have become popular in the west.

As regards your acquaintance who spent four years in an ashram and yet is not well versed in Vedantic dharma, you seem to not to realize that even Indians recongize that the cultural differences between non-Hindus and Hindus are unbridgeable, and that is why westerners are not generally indoctrinated into some kind of Hindu "catechism". I know several people who have spent years in Hindu ashrams, who have even been given diksha by prominent teachers, and who do not consider themselves Hindus. The fact is, you do have to be raised within that culture to be a Hindu, and yet that is not significant in terms of spiritual development. Knowing all the ins and outs of various Hindu systems of belief are not intrinsic to Vedantic teachings either. What most westerners learn from Hinduism is a primal, universal approach to wisdom itself, and it doesn't require them to memorize all the details of vedic teachings. Those are culturally based, whereas the core of Vedanta is a universal understanding applicable to all cultures.

Ramana Maharshi, who is one of the most influential Hindu teachers in the west in the 20th century, didn't even consider himself or his teachings to be Hindu. He felt an alignment to Advaita Vedanta, but he didn't consider this to be "Hindu" in any particular sense, but a universal truth applicable to all people everywhere. His own teachings on self-enquiry were not for Hindus only, and were not dependent on a knowledge of Hinduism. He taught not only westerners, but muslims and people of very diverse backgrounds. So have a great many who have followed his example, and the examples of others. Swami Vivekananda, who was the first Hindu to come teach in the west, also promoted a version of Vedanta that was universalist in orientation, and not parochial to traditional India. He reformed and influence the modern development of Hinduism in India itself in the process.

Now I think it's great if you love Buddhism and Pali and don't feel any interest in Hinduism and its teachings or scriptures, but it's simply untrue that this is anything other than a personal preference of yours. Hinduism has no expectation that the west will convert to Hindusim. It has no concept of "conversion" to begin with, and no such plan. If people are attracted to the universal truths contained in Hinduism, and make them their own, that is fine as far as Hindus are concerned. There is no central dogma or creed to Hinduism in any case, just a remarkably diverse set of religious views and practices that can include virtually anything one might imagine. So "getting it" means different things to different Hindus, not something as singularly defined as believing in the Nicene Creed.

The word 'guru' here is a joke. (Especially after Rajneesh) No-one here wants anything to do with being a guru or even to be seen as a guru. Even computer gurus are uncomfortable with the term and will say 'I am not a guru'.

The Guru system of India is indeed a native cultural phenomena, and not a static system incapable of change. In fact, many of the modern spiritual teachers of Hinduism have shed much of the Guru system. Ramana Maharshi for example refused to consider himself a Guru, and refused to give diksha. He considered the Guru to be necessary, but he would not take on the traditional baggage associated with it. Many others like him have followed a similar drift, or have taught differently to westerners and native Hindus. Nisargadatta for example was considered a Guru lineage holder in the Nath tradition, and did daily puja to his own Guru, but he put no stock in it whatsoever, and he related to westerners as an equal. Poonja Swami taught "no Guru, no disciple" as a basic principle of spirituality, even though he was clearly qualified to act as a Guru within the traditional system. It's no accident that teachers like these became attractive to westerners, and that their teachings have a resonance with the west that allows for their core meanings to come through without so much cultural filtering.

[perfectbite]

conradg,

I have no idea what diksha is.

Once again, what is apparent and common for those who thoroughly know Hinduism take it for granted that everyone else would know what the word diksha meant or perhaps dangle the term so that non-Hindus would become interested and find out or hide behind Hinduism's given idea of the uselessness of proselytizing Hinduism to non-Hindus.

This is a global forum, not some discussion board that is based in Mumbai.

Of necessity English is the Lingua Franca here and isn't in place to keep the uneducated riff raff out.

You failed to address my argument that common to Hindu terms are used by Hindus as if they are stand alone terms as if the superiority (we know but you don't. we are but you aren't) that is endemic to Hinduism both in the spiritual and temporal must also necessarily apply to the rest of the world.

The Buddha saw that coming and in the early stages of Indian Mahayana Buddhism moved away from it.

Now, if you; conradg were actually enlightened, actually possessed awakened mind and not some version of unawakened minded learned wannabe awakened mind, then you would have referred to a crucial experience that accompanied the attaining of awakened mind but you haven't referred to it and for those who have attained awakened minjd, not surprisingly, many of them illiterate, I am not going to waste my time and effort and funds to find out what the state of spiritual Hinduism is just so that I can be quite disappointed.

As far as the person being a property of the senses and the senses being a property of the person. (A logical statement in which A = B but B does not = A) Aupmanyav got it right away. Hinduwoman also got it.

It seems that you didn't get it.

Also, Hinduism is always in flux and what is taught in this century or the past century could just as easily be recanted in the following century.

For instance, declining to be a guru but paying honor to one's guru is either an expression of false modesty or an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibilities of being a guru.

Hinduism is a Koan whose answer is it is all illusion anyway so prop society up and get what you can while you can before you have to wake up and by the way, the karma that is the result of their dharma excludes the sudras so they don't count.


Aupmanyav,

It occurred to me that the Sudras with the Swiss bank accounts etc. could only have such wealth by way of something externally existing to their native Hinduism. I doubt that they could even open simple savings accounts in Hindu India before the world intruded and broke the Hindu caste system open like Humpty Dumpty (an egg who fell off a wall from a children's nursery rhyme) and essentially liberated them.

Thank you for the smiley faces, btw I don't need mollifying, it's just that anyone who is not born a Hindu who seriously looks at Hinduism (even in its general form and not at its specifics) finds that its skirts aren't as clean as they are rosily presented to be by Hindus and non Hindu boosters and that besides jumping from the general to the specific and back in the same sentence, there are assumptions made that essentially cancel everything out as in retreating to the formula that everything is illusion anyway.

It cannot ALL be illusion. The idea of Hinduism being built on universal truths would mean that the whole globe would be Hindu and that ain't the case.

Because we are commonly human of course there are overlaps, in the West it is quite common to hear that the Hindus (or Hinduism) would say ... but I don't know if Hinduism is as accepting of the Wests's wisdom.

For instance; there is an Italian saying that death doesn't matter to the dead but only matters to the living who grieve over the dead.

Hinduism would say why bother grieving in the first place? They'll be back but when pushed they'll say that it is all illusion anyway.

That is a wonderful escape hatch that thankfully isn't shared by everyone unless this life is seen as suffering and a one shot heaven is the escape hatch.

Hinduism is very powerful and should be honored for the openness of the range and depth of its spiritual enquiry but it shouldn't let such honor go to its head and claim that what it found is the absolute and universal truth especially when the portable trapdoor that it is all a dream anyway is really convenient.

Hinduwoman, Thank You.

[premjan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diksha
Also, Sudra != Panchama (untouchable). Sudras in original Aryan society were probably just Dravidians who did tasks the Aryans didn't care for (mainly manual labor). The name probably comes from a particular Dravidian tribe (Sudroi) of the Saraswati region.

[Adonael]

I don't mean the bits about sati and snake worship etc.

I am speaking about philosophical justifications about the theology.
I have noticed that it is very different from Abrahamic religions and frankly the apologetics are superior.

So what am I missing?

Theodicy is a basically an explanation of how evil (or much evil) and God can coexist. why is it, then, that there is barely any talk of evil and god within this thread?

[conradg]

conradg,

I have no idea what diksha is.

Once again, what is apparent and common for those who thoroughly know Hinduism take it for granted that everyone else would know what the word diksha meant or perhaps dangle the term so that non-Hindus would become interested and find out or hide behind Hinduism's given idea of the uselessness of proselytizing Hinduism to non-Hindus.

I'm sorry. I assumed from your haughy demeanor and criticism of people who don't know much of Hindu teachings that you would know that "diksha" means "initiation". In Hinduism, everyone is supposed to have a formal Guru, and that relationship is formalized through the ceremony called diksha, in which the Guru initiates the disciple, usually after a preliminary period of study and practice. Otherwise, you are inferring motives to me that simply don't exist.

In terms of language and culture, obviously there are many Hindu terms that are not going to be well understood in the west, just as there are many western and English terms that are not going to be understood in other cultures. You seem to be culturally biased in assuming that the modern western English culture is the natural basis of common knowledge, and that we should forgo everything else. Well, not. If you want to judge Hinduism, you are going to have to learn about it, its terms, its ideas, its way of thinking, andd so forth, and not expect Hinduism to adopt western language. Although quite a few of the teachers I have mentioned have tried to do just that, to a serious degree, to make themselves better understood by westerners. You seem uninterested though, so what exactly is your problem with it? It's like railing on about the bad food at some restaurant, and then saying, "and such small portions!"

Of necessity English is the Lingua Franca here and isn't in place to keep the uneducated riff raff out.

Yes, but since this thread refers to Hindu theodicies, it does require some actual knowledge of Hinduism. You don't need to know the meaning of every technical term, but if you don't really know much about Hinduism, and don't care to, I have to wonder why you are here at all?

You failed to address my argument that common to Hindu terms are used by Hindus as if they are stand alone terms as if the superiority (we know but you don't. we are but you aren't) that is endemic to Hinduism both in the spiritual and temporal must also necessarily apply to the rest of the world.

Well, this is just nonsense. Hindu terms exist to communicate with other Hindus. Hinduism is not an evangelical religion aimed at outsiders. It has no interest in converting anyone, and the whole notion is simply preposterous to a Hindu. If people outside of Hinduism are interested in its philosophy and practices, they are welcome to try them, and even to become adept at them. But there is no particular accomodation that Hinduism needs to make, even though some certainly do out of curtesy and a desire to help. You are taking offense for reasons that seem immaterial to Hinduism itself.

The Buddha saw that coming and in the early stages of Indian Mahayana Buddhism moved away from it.

That has nothing to do with Buddha's schism with Hinduism. Buddhism certainly created its own highly specialize spiritual nomenclature as well, perhaps even more impenetrable than Hinduism, so I don't see how the point even applies. Plus, they borrowed most of their religious ideas from Hinduism in any case. Most Hindus simply consider Buddhism an offshoot sect of Hinduism in any case, which is probably an accurate description of it.

Now, if you; conradg were actually enlightened, actually possessed awakened mind and not some version of unawakened minded learned wannabe awakened mind, then you would have referred to a crucial experience that accompanied the attaining of awakened mind but you haven't referred to it and for those who have attained awakened minjd, not surprisingly, many of them illiterate, I am not going to waste my time and effort and funds to find out what the state of spiritual Hinduism is just so that I can be quite disappointed.

I fail to see how my enlightenment or lack of the same, my speech about it or lack of the same, has any bearing on this discussion. As Buddha said, work out your own salvation. Don't be so concerned about my enlightenment, attend to your own. If we each do that, we have no need for conflict. No one is suggesting your spend any time exploring Hinduism. It just means your opinions about Hinduism, its past, present and future, are based on ignorance, prejudice, and fear. You are certainly entitled to them, but I don't see that they have much value, even to yourself. I think you would be better off shedding these things, and having no opinion at all, or just an open mind, rather than false ideas based on ignorance of the facts.

As far as the person being a property of the senses and the senses being a property of the person. (A logical statement in which A = B but B does not = A) Aupmanyav got it right away. Hinduwoman also got it.

i didn't even address this issue, and have no quarrel with it, other than to say that it is not a central teaching of Hinduism, and does not much matter one way or the other. Advaita Vedanta (non-dual Hinduism) would be quick to point out that we are neither the senses nor the body nor the "person", and neither is a property of the other. Rather, these illusions are the very thing we must be relieved of through "enlightenment", the shining of the light of consciousness on these illusions of self, body, and the notion that these have "properties" which impinge upon our true Self.

Also, Hinduism is always in flux and what is taught in this century or the past century could just as easily be recanted in the following century.

Yes, Hinduism is in flux, as is everything. Thanks for pointing this out. If you are searching for something that is not in flux, sorry to disappoint you, but even Buddhism teaches there is no such thing.

For instance, declining to be a guru but paying honor to one's guru is either an expression of false modesty or an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibilities of being a guru.

There are certainly other possibilities, such as not wanting people to get caught up in external titles and formalities, and paying attention instead to inner truths and understanding. And also the fact that these teachers stressed that the true Guru was within, and not wanting people to fixate on the outer Guru, but instead to find this Guru within and follow Him. One might even consider that a virtuous and selfless approach that greatly helps alloy the cultic drawbacks of the traditional Guru role.

Hinduism is a Koan whose answer is it is all illusion anyway so prop society up and get what you can while you can before you have to wake up and by the way, the karma that is the result of their dharma excludes the sudras so they don't count.

Technically, we are not sudras (untouchables), we are mllechas (ousiders). But originally, these castes and categories have no fixed, hereditary meanings, but apply only to certain types of individuals. Thus, those with a sincere and passionate interest in religion, mysticism, and liberation could be considered "Brahmans", regardless of where they were born and to whom, and those with only the lowest kinds of desires and inclinations are considered "sudras", whereas an athiest might be considered a "mllecha". But over the centuries the varna system degenerated into the caste system.

The notion that Hinduism says all is an illusion so nothing really matters is one of those pop-culture ideas that I thought you were disdainful of. It turns out you're one of their advocates. Funny how that works.

[perfectbite]

The person who posted this topic wrote; 'Good post' so it contained something of interest, perhaps even something meaningful to her and her forum name is hinduwoman and she is a bona fide Hindu person. Go and look at her website (that is if she still has it up and running).

I have found that if one studies Buddhism and wants to know the terms and moves (I am a Buddhist scholar) one cannot get away from the influence of Hinduism on Buddhism.

I happen to think that Hinduism is a spin off of original Buddhism from way before Siddhartha Guatama Buddha's time. Siddhartha Guatama Buddha merely made the split super-official with the Buddhist teaching of anatma.

At least one other Hindu person in this forum is impressed by my non-Hindu grasp of Hinduism but not you.

Who, as it turns out is neither Buddhist nor Hindu. Yet you know the names and terms and have lots of spiritual book learning which is like someone eating a jumbo bag of greasy potato chips saying 'I'll go on my diet tomorrow' but they never do. Even the deeply spiritual talking about the spiritual is not the spiritual.

PS. In the West we already have an Abrahamic religious group that has a name for outsiders that aren't born into their group, that name is goyim and I am a goyim.

[hinduwoman]

Quick historical pointers:

Sudra does not mean untouchables. It simply means the 'once born' caste which has no rituals pr penances as the twice-born has. The Sudra category has been used for a long time even before Buddha, while the practice of untouchability became solidified and hallowed by 8th century A.D.

Though the sastras did their best to keep sudras low they are constantly lamenting on degeneration of society with Sudras gaining wealth and power and even being accepted as teachers to brahmins. I would say the first open establishment of Sudra power came when a barber became the emperor of Magadha.

When a Sudra caste would improve their lot they would simply change their caste and declare their ancestors had forgotten their original twice born origins.

[hinduwoman]

Perfectbite I don't know what you mean by orignal Buddhism and how Hinduism is an offshoot of original Buddhism.

[perfectbite]

Perfectbite I don't know what you mean by orignal Buddhism and how Hinduism is an offshoot of original Buddhism.

What I meant is that their origins are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. Prior to (and perhaps including the upanishads) Original Buddhism (sotapannas, Nirvana etc.) directly derived from Yoga as did Hinduism and the split of Buddhism from Hinduism wasn't Buddhism breaking away from Hinduism and going it alone but essentially was one form of Yogic Hinduism irrevocably splitting from another form of Yogic Hinduism over anatma and the declarers of anatma becoming Buddhism in the process.

The split actually opened up Buddhism and allowed it to be able to directly address the awakened minded of any spiritual culture and not just the Hindu culture but the holy rollers who are unawakened minded folks who want to be seen as being spiritual got to Buddhism and distorted it in the forms of mature Theravada and then Mahayana Buddhism which forms of Buddhism existed independent of Hinduism in India after the death of S.G. Buddha for circa a millennia and a half and ended less than a millennia ago.



It has always been a mystery to thinkers in the West why Hindu India should have rejected Buddhism so completely when the two views were virtually siamese twins and were very closely alike.

Was it an act of spite or was there an underlying rational basis for the demise of Buddhism besides the Buddha's monastic Sangha insisting that Indian Buddhist monasticism and their takes on the spiritual and temporal world(s) were the 'bee's knees' of all spiritual views and should be followed or else no medicine or doctoring or funeral services for you and your family.

PS. Thank you for explaining the underlying theology between the once and twice born. That whole egg born and water born and sky? born rigamarole was very confusing. Were the Theravadan Buddhist categories of non-returners and once returners a similar thing do you think or was it just a distorted echo of Hinduism?

[perfectbite]

The notion that Hinduism says all is an illusion so nothing really matters is one of those pop-culture ideas that I thought you were disdainful of. It turns out you're one of their advocates. Funny how that works.

Now who doesn't know hinduism? Are you familiar with Maya's illusion as opposed to the illusion of samsara?

You got Buddhism wrong, now don't tell me you got Hinduism wrong too.

[adren@line]

There is a difference between philosophy and practicality.

All maybe an illusion, but that has no practical value. Its simply rational speculation based on esoteric experience.

If we were to implement the cold and hard philosophical and scientific realities, then we would realize that we will all die, our species will die, and eventually we exist for no real purpose or reason. If this were on our minds constantly than we would be a rather depressed and suicidal species.

I personally see this illusion as a gift. It makes "life" joyful, creates an artificial sense of value.

After all, it sure as hell beats being a rock, or an asteroid, or some random dead thing floating around in space. :huh:

[perfectbite]

There is a difference between philosophy and practicality.

All maybe an illusion, but that has no practical value. Its simply rational speculation based on esoteric experience.

If we were to implement the cold and hard philosophical and scientific realities, then we would realize that we will all die, our species will die, and eventually we exist for no real purpose or reason. If this were on our minds constantly than we would be a rather depressed and suicidal species.

I personally see this illusion as a gift. It makes "life" joyful, creates an artificial sense of value.

After all, it sure as hell beats being a rock, or an asteroid, or some random dead thing floating around in space. :huh:

This evening I was walking by the water and thought; If it is all an illusion then why is there enough water existent in the world for just one of us to drown in? Why should there be enough liquid water to be able to do us harm and the answer has just come to me. So that we don't have to live in an eternal moist fog.

This is a strange and marvellous illusion.

[conradg]

The notion that Hinduism says all is an illusion so nothing really matters is one of those pop-culture ideas that I thought you were disdainful of. It turns out you're one of their advocates. Funny how that works.

Now who doesn't know hinduism? Are you familiar with Maya's illusion as opposed to the illusion of samsara?

You got Buddhism wrong, now don't tell me you got Hinduism wrong too.

I don't know your background, but you seem not to know much about Hinduism at all. If one were to summarize Hinduism in a single statement, it wouldn't be that "all is an illusion so nothing really matters". It would be "all is Brahman so everything is sacred". That you miss the boat on Hinduism so entirely doesn't say much for your ability to grasp Buddhism either.

As for Maya, yes, I know of this aspect of Hindu teachings. The point, however, is that Maya is not real, what is real is Brahman, and the reality of the world is that it is Brahman, not that it is "unreal". Nothing is unreal in Hinduism, instead, everything is reality itself, which only in ignorance seems to be independent of Brahman.

[aupmanyav]

You are right, Perfectbite, hinduism says that the percieved is illusion, so prop society up and make the best use of it without stepping on the toes of other people; and karma does not leave out shudras. Even animals are subject to it. A story (only in humour) says that when Rama was going to the forest, he asked men and women of Ayodhya to turn back and not follow him. They did, but the eunuchs did not, since they were neither men nor women. When Rama came back, he found the eunuchs still there chanting his name. Pleased, he gave them the boon that they would rule in Kaliyouga. Many people believe that today's politicians are those blessed and reaping the benefit of their devotion. Simply said, nobody is out of the karma cycle (except Aupmanyav, since he has realized that he is Brahman; no death, no birth, no karma, just 'dharma' which supports the society).

The shudra billionaires with numbered Swiss accounts are the product of times, the product of current Indian politics, that does not mean that other varnas are not among those billionaires. I totally agree with you, there is nothing special in hindus. As we say in India, they are not 'washed in milk'. Of course, it is not all illusion, Brahman is there constituting all things and non-things in the universe.

It is true that the intrusion of outside world was catastrophic for brahmin pride but they were resilient people and many were able to manage their situation. As for shudras not being able to open savings account is not true. Some were professionals, oilmen, barbers, leather workers, tailors, etc. The most affected were the weavers, whose trade was destroyed by British industry (and they were hundreds of millions of them). Others who were affected were the agriculturists, whose land was taken away from them (land ownership was sacrosanct in India before the British) because of non-payment of taxes (floods and draghts were not considered reasons enough for exemption). That is what created the poor in India, and the landless labour. The barber who gave me hair-cuts in childhood (Kanji - Kanhaiya Lal - dear Kanji gave us cuts only according to what my grandfather said and never catered to my wishes) had enough money to get wells dug and 'dharmashalas' (places where people could stay free of cost) built in charity.

I think there is universal truth in 'advaita', but just as not everybody agrees that JC is the son of God or Mohammad is the final and the best messenger of God, it is not necessary that everybody would accept it. It is a great game being played out there, it is fun, just be the observer and enjoy it.

'Deeksha' is graduation. The teacher accepts that a pupil has learnt the basics and has capabilities for gaining further knowledge and accepts to teach him/her greater things.

[aupmanyav]

Sudras in original Aryan society were probably just Dravidians who did tasks the Aryans didn't care for (mainly manual labor). The name probably comes from a particular Dravidian tribe (Sudroi) of the Saraswati region.Correction, Premjan. Aryans were herders, how would they shirk manual labour? Shudras were those who worked for others and were not among the priests and teachers, soldiers, traders and agriculturists.

Sudroi: "Their name reappears in that of the town Sudros on the lower Indus,
and, what is especially worthy of notice, in that of the people Sudroi,
among the Northern Arachosians.

Thus their existence as a distinct nation is established in the neighbourhood of the Indus, that is to say in the region in which, in the oldest time, the Aryan Indians dwelt. The Aryans probably conquered these indigenous inhabitants first; and when the others in the interior of the country were subsequently subdued and enslaved, the name Sudra was extended to the whole servile caste. There seems to have been some hesitation in the Aryan community about the actual religious position to be given to the Sudras. In the time of the liturgical Brahmanas of the Vedas, they were sometimes admitted to take part in the Aryan sacrifices. Not long afterwards, when the conquests of the Aryans were greatly extended, and they formed a settled state of society among the affluents of the Jumna and Ganges, the Sudras were degraded to the humiliating and painful position which they occupy in Manu. There is no mention of any of the Sankara or mixed castes in the Vedas." (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20583) Does not explicitly says Sudras were Dravidians and that is one opinion. The Zoroastrians also have the four-fold division of society without coming in contact with the Dravidians.

'Panchama' (the fifth - other than brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras) are the outcastes, shunned by the society because of some misdemeanor by them or their forefathers. In classical times, they were knows as Chandalas.

[aupmanyav]

Theodicy is a basically an explanation of how evil (or much evil) and God can coexist. why is it, then, that there is barely any talk of evil and god within this thread?Many among hindus do not accept the existence of evil (Well, then you might ask why are we here?).

ConradG: Perfectbite is a 'tathagata' (I do not say this in fun, it is a fact) and a respected member of the forum. He is a realized person. Well, 'tathagatas' also sometimes get frustrated by the talk of unrealized, let us give him his due.

[conradg]

Hinduism is a family of religions, a vast and heterogeneous religious tradition without a common leader, a common center or a common body of teachings.

Beliefs
Hinduism refers to the religious mainstream which evolved organically spread over large territory marked by significant ethnic and cultural diversity. This mainstream evolved both by innovation from within, and by assimilation of external traditions or cults into the Hindu fold. The result is an enormous variety of religious traditions, ranging from innumerable small, unsophisticated cults to the major religious movements with millions of adherents spread over the entire subcontinent. The identification of Hinduism as an independent religion separate from Buddhism or Jainism consequently hinges on the affirmation of adherents that it is such.[21]

Prominent themes in (but not restricted to) Hindu beliefs include Dharma (ethics/duties), Samsāra (The continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth), Karma (action and subsequent reaction), Moksha (liberation from samsara), and the various Yogas (paths or practices).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism


Did you get this from Wikipedia? It seems deeply flawed. Hinduism never even existed as "Hinduism" until the British came along. There is no similar term in India for a single religious tradition or group of them that now goes by this name. The British virtually invented Hinduism as it now stands, because they wanted someone in charge of India they could deal with. So they singled out the basic traditions of north Indian Vishnaivism, for the most part, as "Hinduism". Much of Hinduism has little to do with Vaishanvism, but since the British came along it has become commonplace to associate Hinduism almost exclusively with this particular tradition, and to hell with the Saivites, the Dravidians, the tantrics, and almost everyone else.

Furthermore, the British elevated the Brahmins to political leadership because they liked the idea of an elite class, similar to their own upper classes, who could enforce dominant rule on the rest of India. Previous to the British the Brahmins enjoyed nowhere near the status they achieved under British rule. India has by and large always been an ungovernable collection of small regional kingdoms each with many different religious traditions spanning them. So mainstream Hinduism is itself very much a modern invention created for the sake of easier governance rather than religious authenticity. To talk about Buddhism and Hinduism as related religions presupposes that Hinduism itself is a single religion from which Buddhism might deviate. It isn't. Hinduism, if it means anything, refers to any kind of religion which traces any of its teachings to the vedas, which could include virtually any tradition of the Indian subcontinent, from primitive shamanism (which is what Vedism originally was) to the most sophisticated teachings of kashmiri shavisim or the bhakta of south India or the devotions of bengali vaishnavism, or the non-dualism of advaita to the asceticisms of the sadhus and the indulgences of the tantrics. You will find almost every possible variation expressed, even that of atheism. So really, there is no mainstream, there's just a very wide stream that everyone can swim in. On the other hand, politically speaking there has certainly emerged something that could be called a "mainstream" in this century, but it's purely a political phenomena of very recent times. We get political parties beating the drumbeat of "traditional Hinduism", as if there ever were such a thing. It's a useful fantasy, however, for the sake of trying to hold together a country of a billion people which has no real existence except within the fantasy created by the British to make unified rule possible. In reality, much of India remains ungovernable, and it's people simply do as they like, both religiously and politically.

[aupmanyav]

Furthermore, the British elevated the Brahmins to political leadership because they liked the idea of an elite class, similar to their own upper classes, who could enforce dominant rule on the rest of India.Nice post. I suppose brahmins were elevated because they had the best education and the best attitude towards education. Kshatriyas were haughty (they were the ones fighting the British), Vaishyas were busy in their trade (another resilient people who prospered whoever ruled, whether it was hindu kings, or muslims, or British, they prosper even after WTO) and Shudras were unfortunately ill-equipped to take up immediately. I think, polytheism is the main-stream.

[premjan]

The word "Hindu" comes from the Persians and entered India during the rule of Turkish Sultans in Delhi. However, it initially was a geographical designation, and the British turned it into a religious designation. The Brahmins were the educational elite hence suited to take over administrative jobs in the British empire.

I also don't believe that Hinduism refers only to Vaishnavism, or ever did. It was originally a geographical designation so it refers to the continuation of the Aryan spiritual tradtion inside the Indian subcontinent.

[conradg]

Furthermore, the British elevated the Brahmins to political leadership because they liked the idea of an elite class, similar to their own upper classes, who could enforce dominant rule on the rest of India.Nice post. I suppose brahmins were elevated because they had the best education and the best attitude towards education. Kshatriyas were haughty (they were the ones fighting the British), Vaishyas were busy in their trade (another resilient people who prospered whoever ruled, whether it was hindu kings, or muslims, or British, they prosper even after WTO) and Shudras were unfortunately ill-equipped to take up immediately. I think, polytheism is the main-stream.

Yes, all the above. One should also include what might have been the Brahmins primary qualification for the job: their general uselessness, which mirrored the uselessness of the British upper classes of the time. Like people associate themselves with their peers, even across cultural chasms.

[conradg]

Theodicy is a basically an explanation of how evil (or much evil) and God can coexist. why is it, then, that there is barely any talk of evil and god within this thread?Many among hindus do not accept the existence of evil (Well, then you might ask why are we here?).

ConradG: Perfectbite is a 'tathagata' (I do not say this in fun, it is a fact) and a respected member of the forum. He is a realized person. Well, 'tathagatas' also sometimes get frustrated by the talk of unrealized, let us give him his due.

Thanks for enlightening me. I will be more deferential in the future to his Holiness. It must be a very frustrating position to hold in this unenlightened world of ours.

[perfectbite]

You betya.

[TruthPrevails]

Did you get this from Wikipedia? It seems deeply flawed. Hinduism never even existed as "Hinduism" until the British came along. There is no similar term in India for a single religious tradition or group of them that now goes by this name. Didn't you see the wiki reference there.
If you read the whole article on 'Hinduism' in wiki, it is saying almost the same thing your restating in your post.
I think the majority of Wiki users are aware of it's limitations. For the purpose of this OP, it is sufficient.

[aupmanyav]

The word "Hindu" comes from the Persians and entered India during the rule of Turkish Sultans in Delhi.It is from Persians but it is much much older than that. Even Zarathrushta talks of the fifteenth homeland of Aryans as 'Hapta-Hendu' in Avesta. When do you date Zarathrushta?Yes, all the above. One should also include what might have been the Brahmins primary qualification for the job: their general uselessness, which mirrored the uselessness of the British upper classes of the time. Like people associate themselves with their peers, even across cultural chasms.Ha, ha. I don't mind that.

TruthPrevails: ConradG has a nice understanding of hinduism, which actually will surprise me if he/she is not a hindu. Conrad has a fair understanding of buddhism also.

[premjan]

Hapta-Hendu is just a Persian spelling of sapta-sindhu. It doesn't mean anything to do with people or religion.

[aupmanyav]

Premjan, if they knew the region as 'Hapta-Hendu', it is almost sure that they will call the people and their beliefs as hindu.

[hinduwoman]

Yes, all the above. One should also include what might have been the Brahmins primary qualification for the job: their general uselessness, which mirrored the uselessness of the British upper classes of the time. Like people associate themselves with their peers, even across cultural chasms.

True. But you are also forgetting the literacy and political dimension.

The Brahmins had always kept up a tradition of literacy and so made ideal bureaucrats for the British. But the influence also went the other way --- because these Brhamins, specially court-pandits, were the ones with whom British had most contact, they accepted the brahmanical version of Hinduism as the 'real' Hinduism.

Brahmins had become prominent due to the rise of Peshwas. They had become governors and fort commanders in Maratha empire. So it was more natural for the british to veiw them as natural aristocrats.

[aupmanyav]

Premjan, we mentioned Persians but the other Central Asians also must have used the word Hapta-Hendu. Zarathrushtra himself perhaps was not Persian (though his belief became the the official religion of the empire) but Central Asian. Hapta-Hendu was sort of the name for Indian nation in those days. People outside did not know much beyond West and North-Western India (much of it must have been forests).

[premjan]

Th Persians did call people living east of the Indus as Hindus. But the term was not used by Indians until the Turkish Sultanate, and at that time it was used as a geographical / ethnic term (i.e. Hindustan is the land of the Hindus). The British appear to have made it into a religious term.

[perfectbite]

Can I recommend the book 'The search for the Buddha' by Charles Allen.

It is well researched and written and gives the history and view of the before and early British empire in relation to India.

It does address the British idea of India being ripe for the advent of Christianity and the political battles in London that pitted those British who valued Hinduism as it was and those British who felt that the British Empire's function was the proselytization of Episcopalean type Christianity.

[perfectbite]

Conrad has a fair understanding of buddhism also.

Yeah, Buddhism with a little b.

[aupmanyav]

But the term was not used by Indians until the Turkish Sultanate, and at that time it was used as a geographical / ethnic term (i.e. Hindustan is the land of the Hindus).At that time there was India (Bharatvarsha) but no Indians. There were Kashmiris, Dogris, Pahari, Multani, Lahori, Jhangi, Sindhi, Jat, Rajput, Bania (Vaishyas), Brahmins, Lohar (Ironsmiths), Sonar (Goldsmiths), Marwari, Shekhavati (Jaipur), Mewari, Hadoti (Kota), Brajvasi, and so on (ad infinity). Regions, professions, and tribes.