Satyakama: 08/19/05

I will not go into the different sects which are there in Hinduism, but try to analyse it from a principles point of view.

Universality: This is the first priciple in Hinduism. The principle of universality. Whether in science or in religion, any theory is considered good only if it is applicable universally. The presence of anomalies makes any theory incomplete. So Hinduism does not give any exclusive priveleges to anyone. If it is possible for one to see God, it should be possible for all to see God. If one can be a son of God, any other person also should have the potential to be son of God.If Meera saw Krishna, I too should have the potential to see Krishna.('potential'- meaning- may not be at the present time, but surely has a chance, provided he is determined).

Cause & Effect: Every action is a result of another action. Every result has a cause. So this principle is that if something happens, its not just that it generally happened, but happened due to a cause. Suppose if water is formed, it has not come into existence from no where, but has formed due to the presence of H, O and also some other conscious entity bringing them close. This principle results in what is called "Law of Karma".

Anubhuti: This is also the main idea in the Hinduism. It means 'experience'. The idea is that to know the reality, we ourselves should experience it, and not on some others experience. I cannot understand the God, until I myself experience it. A person who has seen a horse is trying to tell how a horse will be. But if I have never seen horse myslef, my understanding of horse will not be complete, and I may even start to think of horse as donkey, coz I have only seen a donkey.

Now the whole of Hinduism can be divided into four approaches.

1. Jnana Yoga, The yoga of Knowledge. The philosopher, the thinker, who wants to go beyond what is visible, and understand the Reality.

2. Karma Yoga, the yoga of Action. Working in a unattached manner. Serving others, helping the poor etc.

3. Bhakti Yoga, the yoga of devotion. Faith and belief also may be a part of it, but the most essential part of this is unconditional love. Loving God, without expecting any results, jsut for the sake of love, like a mother loves her child etc.

4. Raja Yoga, the yoga of psychic control. Controlling the internal nature and the mind through practices like Meditation etc.

Whatever sect of Hinduism you take, it will be a combination of these four aspects. Only the proportions may vary. One can now easily see that due to this reason, sects are not seen as something problematic in Hinduism. Each person may have a different nature. One may be more emotional, another may be intellectual, some other hard working. So the respective aspects also should be in accordance to his internal nature. Only one has to be only careful about sectarianism.. thinking that he alone is unique, and others inferior. Thats why you can see that one personal may be a totally reasoning type, questioning even the existence of God, and another may be a totally devoted person, not bothered about any of the philosophies, and still both these extremes will live without any problem in Hinduism.

Now the next question is all these four yogas are enirely different, how can they be explained. Yes at a surface level, they are different. But if you see deeper, there is one element which is common to all of these: "The Idea of Freedom". Moksha, this is the Goal of every human knowingly or unknowingly.

This is *my* understanding of Hinduism, and will be happy to be corrected if wrong.

Are we more Tolerant ??

It is true that Hinduism that the tolerance of Hinduism is much abused and exploited by other religions. In the present times also there are greater threats from Islam and Christianity.

The Hindu society has been divided into two extremes regarding this:

1) One sections feels that Hindus should leave their tolerance. Being tolerant is making the Hindu society weak. Conversions are being carried out at sword and money, but we are simlpy sitting and seeing tamasha. Time is not away when Hindus will be wiped out just the way all the native american and african civilizations has been wiped out.

2) The other end is the 'secularists'. They even do not agree to accept that there is a challenge. They try to justify everything. So, even if somebody is converting, it is not bad. They are too eager to prove that a chritian can also attain Moksha. They deny to accept that Hindus have been brutally killed by Muslims and Christians, and they are more than willing to do it again if they have and oppurtunity. These ppl have hynotised themselves that he is right.

But they fail to understand that they do not give a damn about the Hindu philosophy or tolerance. That philosophy and tolarence with which they are trying justify the Missionaries' actions, will be first to be destroyed. These ppl aften quote all paths lead to same goal; but fail to understand that it will be first to be destroyed once Hinduism is not there.

They turn a blind eye to all the Hindus' troubles. They are not even to ready to accept that Hindus are being selectively killed by Muslims in Kashmir, Bangladesh; that Church is directly supporting terrorists in Northeast, and a Hindu cannot even celebrate his festivals there.

So, for ordinary Hindus like us, the question remains: "Should I become intolerant to preserve my religion with its tolarence; or should I be tolerant, and allow tolerance itself to be destroyed"

To understand this, first we have to understand what tolerance is. Tolerence should not be misunstood as timidity and Inaction. Tolerance is of a Master, not of a slave. What power does a slave have other than simply sit and see, and which he calls to himself as tolerance.

To compromise with falsehood is not tolerance or non-violence. It is self-destruction. To turn away in fear or hesitation, not to stand up for what one believes is true, is not modesty but self-betrayal.

Regeneration, the Hindu way:

A Hindu is always introspective. Whether it is for God or for problems, he always searches inside. Also, as it is a Hinduism forum, it will be apt to just say what Hindus can do. These I feel Hindus are lacking very much:

1. Pride: They have been thought from day one in the schools that their forefathers were bunch of tribals; that their religion does not contain anything except some out dated practices. Hindus do not take pride in calling themselves Hindus. They ar not even aware of the great pholosophical and literary works in Hinduism. They just blondly riducule everything in Hinduism. So, first and formost is pride.

2. Strength: Hindus badly lack this. Strength here means Physical, Intellectual and spiritual strength. Even if a bunch of Muslims are coming to convert Hindus, why are the Hindus so weak not to protect themselves.

We lack intellectual strength also. We simply feel that we have so many problems, but do not have the strength to tackle them ourselves. We just wait for some person to come and do all our work. One more Sankaracharya, one more Vivekananda. But what can even they do, if we do not have the strength enough to preserve what we have.

3. Character: I feel this is universally lacking. But it is no justification for us. It is because of lack of character that we are not able to move forward, and properly utilize our strengths. Also, most ppl judge a religion more by its followers than anything else.

4. Unity: The slavish mentality in us has not fully gone. If one person tries to climb up, all of us try our level best to bring him down. The History of India is full of many episode where Indians helped foriegners against our own Indians due to jealousy. This jealousy is a dangerous disease killing us from inside.

5. Redundant practices: There are some old redundant practices like: Caste, Child marriages. Every effort should be made to remove these discriminations. But one good aspect is that opposition for this decresing, and the direction is towards the progress only.

6. Awarenes: Many Hindus are not even aware of the threats against Hinduism. Simply if a missionary comes in a good dress and speaks in a nice language, they fall for him; some even donate some money for them thinking that they will be using it for service purposes. But hardly do they know that this very money is used to convert some of the Hindus, and then make them stand against Hindus. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

I think these are what we lack, and if we Hindus can fill these defects, we can easily face any threats. Each individual can try to archieve them in his own way, which ever is possible for him

The challenge before the Hindu society then will be To differentiate evil from the evil doer

Being conservative does not mean that all the Hindus start having swords and kill everybody, and be intolerant. All it requires is to be aware of the external threat, and make other Hindus aware. So, the next time some missionary tries to convert you, you will simply laugh at his lies and hence his purpose is defeated. At the same time we have no grudges against him, and tolerant towards him.

I feel this way we can remain tolerant, and yet preserve our tolerance.

Indian Culture

Religion and Culture are most intricately mixed in the Indian context, and the idea of one will be never complete without the idea of the other. The Rishis of Upanishads were not mere philsophers, they were also very poetic.

While philosophy deals with the abstarctions of the reality, Art deals with life. The fusion of Art and philosophy, is capable of producing the most beautiful Religious ideals, as seen in the case of Upanishads.

I was reading a small artcile about views of Swami Vivekananda on Indian culture, culled from various places. It is a very nice one.

================================

Indians to Study Indian Culture
Q.: But what does that matter? What if they [Indians] do not know the names of their forefathers?

Swamiji: Don't think so. A nation that has no history of its own has nothing in this world. Do you believe that one who has such faith and pride as to feel, 'I come of noble descent', can ever turn out to be bad? How could that be? That faith in himself would curb his actions and feelings, so much so that he would rather die than commit wrong. So a national history keeps a nation well-restrained and does not allow it to sink so low.

Those who have eyes to see, find a luminous history there, and on the strength of that they know the nation is still alive. But that history has to be rewritten. It should be restated and suited to the understanding and ways of thinking.

So let us study for the above reason and also because it is a contributing factor in the development of the entire human civilization.

Appraisal of Indian Culture
Swamiji: If there is one word in the English language to represent the gift of India to the world, if there is one word in the English language to express the effect which the literature of India produces upon mankind, it is this one word, 'fascination'. It is the opposite of anything that takes you suddenly; it throws on you, as it were, a charm imperceptibly.

To many, Indian thought, Indian manners, Indian customs, Indian philosophy, Indian literature are repulsive at the first sight; but let them persevere, let them read, let them become familiar with the great principles underlying these ideas, and it is ninety-nine to one that the charm will come over them, and fascination will be the result. Slow and silent, as the gentle dew that falls in the morning, unseen and unheard yet producing a most tremendous result, has been the work of the calm, patient, all-suffering spiritual race upon the world of thought. Once more history is going to repeat itself. For today,... comes to the fore the philosophy of India, which displays the highest religious aspirations of the Indian mind, where the grandest philosophical facts have been the practical spirituality of the people.
…What good is it to paint a picture if the details are wrong? An historical picture comes up to a standard of excellence when after making proper study and research, things are portrayed exactly as they were at that period. The truth must be represented, otherwise the picture is nothing.

Knowledge
Q.: How then should Sri Krishna be represented in the picture in question?

Swamiji: Sri Krishna ought to be painted as He really was, the Gita personified; and the central idea of the Gita should radiate from His whole form as He was teaching the path of Dharma to Arjuna, who had been overcome by infatuation and cowardice.
[So saying Swamiji posed himself in the way in which Sri Krishna should be portrayed, and continued:] 'Look here, thus does he hold the bridle of the horses--so tight that they are brought to their haunches, with their forelegs fighting the air, and their mouths gaping. This will show a tremendous play of action in the figure of Sri Krishna. His friend, the world-renowned hero, casting aside his bow and arrows, has sunk down like a coward on the chariot, in the midst of the two armies.

And Sri Krishna, whip in one hand and tightening the reins with the other, has turned Himself towards Arjuna, with his childlike face beaming with unworldly love and sympathy, and a calm and serene look--and is delivering the message of the Gita to his beloved comrade. Now, tell me what idea this picture of the Preacher of the Gita conveys to you.'

The friend: Activity combined with firmness and serenity.

Swamiji: Ay, that's it! Intense action in the whole body, and withal a face expressing the profound calmness and serenity of the blue sky. This is the central idea of the Gita--to be calm and steadfast in all circumstances, with one's body, mind, and soul centred at His hallowed Feet!

The God of Infinite Love and the object of Love sublime and infinite are painted blue. Krishna is painted blue, so also Solomon's God of Love. It is a natural law that anything sublime and infinite is associated with blue colour. Take a handful of water, it is absolutely colourless. But look at the deep wide ocean; it is as blue as anything. Examine the space near you; it is colourless. But look at the infinite expanse of the sky; it is blue.

Patriotism
Swamiji [Referring to Kalidasa's verse on the Himalaya]: The important words in this verse are devatatma (ensouled by Divinity) and manadanda (measuring-rod). The poet implies and suggests that the Himalaya is not a mere wall accidentally constructed by nature. It is ensouled by Divinity and is the protector of India and her civilization not only from the chill icy blasts blowing from the arctic region but also from the deadly and destructive incursions of invaders. The Himalaya further protects India by sending the great rivers Sindhu, Ganga, and Brahmaputra perennially fed by melted ice irrespective of the monsoon rains.

Manadanda implies that the poet affirms that the Indian civilization is the best of all human civilizations and forms the standard by which all the other human civilizations, past, present, and future, must be tested. Such was the poet's lofty conception of patriotism.

Culture in Day to Day Indian Life
Swamiji: Have you seen their [peasants'] granaries for keeping paddy? What an art is there in them! What a variety of paintings even on their mud walls! And then, if you go and see how the lower classes live in the West, you would at once mark the difference. Their ideal is utility, ours art. The Westerner looks for utility in everything, whereas with us art is everywhere. With the Western education, those beautiful Ghatis of ours have been discarded, and enamel glasses have usurped their place in our homes! Thus the ideal of utility has been imbibed by us to such an extent as to make it look little short of the ridiculous. Now what we need is the combination of art and utility. Japan has done that very quickly, and so she has advanced by giant strides. Now, in their turn, the Japanese are going to teach the Westerners.

Social Life
Swamiji: These festivals and the like are also necessary; for then only, these ideas will spread gradually among the masses. You see, the Hindus have got their festivals throughout the year, and the secret of it is to infuse the great ideals of religion gradually into the minds of the people. It has also its drawback, though. For people in general miss their inner significance and become so much engrossed in externals that no sooner are these festivities over than they become their old selves again. Hence it is true that all these form the outer covering of religion, which in a way hide real spirituality and self-knowledge.

But there are those who cannot at all understand in the abstract what 'religion' is or what the 'Self' is, and they try to realise spirituality gradually through these festivals and ceremonies.

UNQUOTE

Is Hinduism Monotheistic or Polythiestic

This is part of an discussion I once had with a Muslim. In this apart from Motheism, polyhteism etc, I have also tried to put my views on Brahman and the reason and working behind idol worship. The text in blue is question(the opposing side), and the text in balck my views on the questions

================

Thanks to a brief "Concept of God in Hinduism" by Zakir Naik, many Muslims by reading that one page feel that they have known what Hinduism is, and that the Hindus are all along wrong in their concpet of God, and by mistake worship the idols, not even knowing what their own scriptures say.

But be assured, Hindus are doing what their scriptures say, and what these ideas of polythesism etc are not in contradiction to what the scriptures say.

One may or may not agree to the idea of personal god/idol worship. My idea is not prove these things in this post, but only to show that there is no contradiction in the scriptural references and practice of Hindus

Its a long post, hope you will have the patience to read.

1. "Ma cid anyad vi sansata sakhayo ma rishanyata"
"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone." [Rigveda 8:1:1]

2. "Ekam evadvitiyam"
"He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]

Now in these two instances, the reference is ONE god. Are these texts talking about Monotheism?

Dictionary meaning of Monotheism is: "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God"

So, according to this, NO where does Vedas teach monotheism.

The concpet of God you are talking is according to the Advaita School of philosophy. So all the later views are also in accordance to that school.

The God which is referred there is called by the sanskrit word "Brahman" (not the caste brahmin).

This Brahman according to it is "the purnah" or "the whole", that is sum total of all elements in the universe, and beyond universe(if any).

There is a difference between Monotheism and Monoism. The verse you referred to speak of monoism and not monotheism.

Lets take a example: If I say there exists only one Earth in the Universe, then I am implying that there exists a earth, and there exists someother things, which are not Earth, and there exists only one Earth. Same with the case of Monotheism. There exists a God, and there exists some other things that are not God, and this God is Unique and one.

But if I say there exists only one universe, then if I say there does not other universe, it not just does not mean that there are someother things which are not universe, but means that there is only one universe, and as the universe encompasses everything, there is nothing beyond it, or nothing which is second to it. It is all.

In the case of Monotheism there exists God and non-God which covers Earth, humans, Satan etc. But in the case of monoism, there exists only God, and there is no non-God. So the verse there is no second to it, still is correct, without reference to monotheism.

The God which the Upanishad there talks about is the Brahman, which is infinite in nature. So we say there is nothing beyond that Brahman(beyond infinite will again be part of infinite)

So it is in no way supporting the monotheism, as the Abrahamic faith see it.

While the one God that Muslims talk does not include any other God; the Brahman Hindus refer to, do not exclude any God or human or any animan or plant(so the reverence to literally everything) Muslims it is like only one way of writing a word; for Hindus, it is what ever way you write the word, the meaning is one. Except the one, there is nothing in common.

But the Upanishad refers as "Without Second", so does it mean that it is denying all other Gods?

It does not mean that there are some other things, and they are not Gods, but means that there does not exist anything else, so no other Gods are also there.

Then you may ask how come Hinduism has so many Gods. Well in reality, Hinduism talks of one reality Brahman, and says that all the other forms are just manifestations of the same Divinity.

Like a ocean and waves in it. In the same way, there may be many waves in ocean, all these are divine, as they are part of the ocean (thats the reason why Hindus revere almost everything as Divine.. humans, animals,trees.. all are part of that divinity). At the same time there exists only one ocean, and the same water. Just they are different manifestations.

so then how many Gods are there in Hinduism?

There is no one answer for this. To tell you how many Gods are there, first we have to define what we mean by God.

In other religions, the definition of God is contant, and hence the number of Gods also. But in Hinduism there are many different ways of looking at what God is, so the number of Gods will also change accordingly.

Hence to avoid confusion, lets stick to Advaita, the school of thought which is related to the quote from Upanishad you gave.

According to Advaita, there is only one God. But this does not mean ONE god as in the case of Islam. Here Advaita says that there is ONLY GOD. Not just God is one, but there is only God existing. The difference between the statements 'there exists only ONE earth', and 'there exists only Universe'. As there does not exist anything beyond this Universe, the Universe is ONE.

In case of Islam, the ONE God is personal ie., he is a consious entity: he creates, he sustains, rewards etc etc. He is consciosly doing so.

But in this case of Brahman, it is impersonal. It just happens to do so. There is no such thing as it as or does not have to do so. Like the case of fire burning. The fire just burns. It does not think I have to burn this, should not burn this. It is its nature, and it does that. Thats all.

Hence the correct statement will be to say there exists only God according to Hinduism, instead of saying there exists only one God in Hinduism. Hope one understands the subtle yet significant difference between the two statements.

Now if all the Gods we see are manifestations of the Only reality(God) Brahman, is it then correct to call all these Gods as demigods?

Again there is no single answer for it. In Hinduism, most of the things does not have rigid definitions and concepts, but are dependent on the individual state of mind.

Hence whether these manifestations are demi gods or not, is something dependent on the person in case, and what is his attitude.

Lets take another example: Suppose differnt toys, figures are made of clay. There may be a clay elephant, clay horse etc. But in reality all are actually clay.

If you understand what this clay is completly, you can understand how anyhting made out of it works.

Suppose if you take a clay pot. Now if a person is intrested in understanding how this pot works, then his knowledge will be limited to just this case. He is just intrested in the working of the pot alone, nothing more. His knowledge is hence partial and limited.

But suppose if he takes up the study of the pot, not to understand the pot, but to understand the clay, then his knowledge is not limited, and the possibilities of the clay are still unlimited.

The difference is that in one case: we study the pot, just to know what it is. But in the other case, we study the pot as a means to know everything. Hence the attitude we maintain will decide whether the power of it is limited or unlimited. The pot in itself cannot be categorised as limited or unlimited, but has to be done on the basis of what our attitude towards its study is.

In the same way, if a person takes up worship of a God, just to satisfy his personal goals, and for material desire, then his knowledge is limited to just that concerning to those material ideas of that God, and hence, in this case the god becomes demi-god... limited in powers.

But if he approches a God not with the motive of limited desires, but as a window to the infite reality, then the God will not be a demi-god, but will be GOD as this now become the means to understand everything

Is the controlling power of the universe then with the Brahman. Does he control everything

As I said earlier, controlling assumes there is a personal conscious entity. There is A, there is B more powerful than A, and consciously contolling him. But the Brahman is impersonal. It has no desire to control/not to control.

Earlier I gave the example of fire. The fire just burns. It does not control or decide which to burn, which not to.

Also to have a controller/controlled, we need two entities atlest- one controller, and one controlled. But when there is no second, but only one, then there does not arise the question of control.

Hence your statement the one God as controller of others is self contradictory. We cannot say 'fire' controlled a 'flame' or to say 'water' controlled the 'wave'. It is one and the same, and so there will be no controller, no controlled. The fire, water etc are impersonal. Same with Brahman.

See this verse

"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]

Here Krishna condemms the ppl who worhsip demi-Gods

Read the verse carefully, it does not condemn anyhing/anyone. It just states that those who worhip with materilistic desires, surrender to demigods, which is exactly what I tried to explain earlier by saying the a God being demigod or not is soemthing deendent on the individual's attitude.

6/8/2005 10:13 PM
Sri Krishna there is just saying that those who worhip the limited, will be bound in the limited. Its just statement of facts, and no condemnation.

He is just telling that going to God, and asking for some little limited desires to be fulfilled is like going to a king and asking for brinjals. The king is capable of much more. Nor does it it mean that the king is not capable of giving brinjals.

In the same way, we can approach reality for anything, and anything possible, but why aim for small, if infinite is achievable. But still if one wants limited only, he is free to do so. None is condemmed from doing so.

The Brahma Sutra says:

"Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan"

"There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit."

Now here there is no ambiguity. It talks of 'only ONE', and not only God referred earlier.

Brahma Sutras are written by Badarayana, believed to be Vyasa. This along with Gita and Upanishads form the set of three central books of Hindu philosophy, and are also called Prasthana traya.

Brahma Sutras are NOT the primary authority of Hinduism like Vedas, and hence the meaning of verses to be taken in context and not in . It is a logical text that sets forth the philosophy systematically, and not a authority. But still they form a very imp part of the Hindu philosophy, as they systematically brings out the various concepts of Vedanta.

Now coming to the verse, I think the translation is wrong. Zakir Naik gave references to all the other verses, but not to this(???). I am not a scholar in sanskrit, but as I undestand it, the correct translation will be:

Ekam means one, brahm refers to Brahman, dvitiya- second, naste not there, neh na naste kinchan- no not at all.

It simply means "Brahman is one; there is no second, no not at all", hence simply pointing to what I said earlier.

Why then are there so many different views among the Hindus themselves about Hinduism being Monotheism, polytheism, Monoism etc etc. Only one can be correct right?

If you are thinking that there is one steroetyped form of Hinduism, with some set of teachings which is standard for every Hindu, then you are mistaken.

Is there a standardized view amongst Hindus about Hinduism being which "ism- No

Are there Hindus who are polytheists? Yes

Is Hinduism polytheist then? partially yes.

Are there Hindus who feel Hinduism has thought monotheisms? yes

Is Hinduism monotheistic then? partially yes

Are there HIndus who feel that Hinduism talks of momoism? yes

Is Hinduism monoism then? partially yes

Does the verses from upanishads etc which were given earlier prove that Hinduism is monotheistic, and the other existing views in Hinduism are result of Hindus not being aware of what their scriptures teach? NO. These verses does not prove that Hinduism is monotheistic. All the same verses are actually explained by monoism, and thus these does not necessarily extablish that Hindus should worhip the ONE god, but they are mistaken and not doing so.

What then is Hinduism? Hinduism is monoism, monothism, polytheism etc according to different ppl.

Is there no single concept or answer to this? Hinduism accepts that the concpets of God for different people may be different. It thus does not try to standardize these thinking, respecting the individual freedom and growth.

Truth can only be one, isnt then obscure that different ppl have different views of God? The Reality may be one, but what we think as reality is actually what we see through the prism of mind.

A child may not see a theif in world; the same child after he grows may see thiefs everywhere. The world has not changed, but the child's concept of world has changed. In the same way, what we think of God is not actually direct perception of God, but God seen though the prism of our mind. Hence it is perfectly natural that different ppl see it differently according to their mental nature.

Now if the Hindu scriptures talk of the reality as being a formless, attributeless entity, are not then the ppl who follow polytheism wrong?

Its not true that polytheism is against Vedanta texts. No it is not. Arre.. I feel the personal manifestation of the god is one of the greatest things man has ever thought of.

Its like this:

Is light green? - yes

Is light blue? - yes

but what is the colour of light? - white

In the same way, the concept of Brahman is as referred to totality. But there can be manisfestations of this reality, as we have seen in the case of above example.

Hinduism does not say that a person moves from false to truth, but says he moves from lower truth to higher truth. Hence we condemm none.

Now the question comes, why should he then follow the lower truth, instead of the highest, and be a polytheist.

The answer to this depends on what is the goal we have in mind. Hinduism is not about 'following the orders of god' that we should know what that god is. Hinduism is about the man going beyond the limitations of nature. Religion for us "the struggle of man to transcend the limitations of the nature/senses"

To accomplish this we have to also take the human limitations into consideration. No matter how much you try, the man cannot comprehend the infinite. Did you ever try to think of infinite, all that comes to our mind may be empty space. Even this empty space that is outside our body. With the help of many other such illustrations, I can safely say that as long as the idea of body is there, man cannot comprehend the concept of infinite.

Its not just about knowing of the word infinite, but perceiving it, feeling it, without any limitations. Which is almost impossible for most of us.

Hence we adopt the concept of personal god. I am pretty convinced that if a buffalo has to ever think of God, it will think of it as a bigger buffalo, with 10 horns etc. This is coz our conception of infinite is through our mind.

Thats why there is this concpet of Avatara in Hinduism- God as human. We attribute human qualities to him, not because they are his attributes, but coz they help us expand our idea of infinite. Ishvara(meaining Personal God) is the highest manifestation of the Absolute Reality, or in other words, the highest possible reading of the Absolute by the human mind

So, all the arguments that polyheists being 'wrong' fall apart, as there the assumption is that the person is doing something wrong. Whereas he is not doing anything wrong. He may not be aware of all it, but still does not matter. A child likes to play. We allow it, as it is good for his health etc. But neither does the child know about advatages of playing, nor about the human anatomy. But as person who knows all that also will not stop the child as, the child may not know how it works, but he not doing something wrong.

But then again, if one wants to know the workings, it is also available.

To give a crude example: In caluclus we solve for some equations, which in some case may be infite. So what we do is, we replace the inifite with a X, and put a limit, and proceed to solving the poblem as if X is a finite quantity. At the same time we know that X is not finite.

But we understand our limitation in solving it directly with the infinite in place. So we use a intermediatery called X which though infinte, is seen as finite. After solving, we simply replace the X with infite, and get what we want.

This feeling is beautifully expressed in this poem: "I will follow him(Krishna) to Mathura, where he now dwells. And if I find him, though I know his consciousness is as the ocean, I will bind him with my sari and drag him home with me!"- making God not a just an abstract concept, but someone very near & dear at the same time.

Now the next question which may come into ones' mind is "Is not this concept of personal god in contradiction to the idea of only God?"

Not really. If you have a pot filled with water, and you place this in a ocean, and even the pot here is made of ice. Then by the idea of Brahman, everything is water. But as long as one has the idea of pot, the idea of ocean is never complete. The water in pot is the man, the pot is called maya. Here the demarcation is not really present, but still 'appears' to be present.

So, as long as the idea of pot is there, the idea of not-pot is also there, hence limiting our ability to think of infinite Brahman.

Thus we accept this fact, and the aim is to remove this idea of "I". This is the core of spirituality- Self-Abnegation. You try to remove the idea of "I", by negating the ego. It may be done in an unsophisticated manner, but still this the principle. Whether it is the concentration of raja yoga or the total self surrender to god of a bhakta or neti neti of a vedantin, self-abnegation is one principle they are trying to express. Some understand why they are doing so; some others do not- but still all are going towards the same Goal; some consciously, some unconsciously.

Hinduism thus condemns none. There is no fear of mistakes either, as Hinduism does not give its follower just one chance, and if you goof it up, you are damned in eternal hell. It continues to give chances as long as the person has finally succeeded. Until he succeeds, he will be continue to get chances in the form of births. This is what I call infinite grace. A grace giving limited chances cannot be termed infinite, but will be a limited grace.

Hinduism's Contributions to the world

compiled by Bhaskar

1. Rosary beads : To pray
2. Joining hands : To pray
3. Temple bells : To draw attention
4. Star in front of the house : ( as Rangoli) To ward off evil forces.
5. The Swastika : Symbol of well being
6. Circumambulation : As an act of worship
7. Idol worship: God manifested as a symbol
8. Sun Worship : Mitra the ancient religion of the ME and the West, is one of the 13 names of the Sun God.
9. The Crescent Moon : Represented with Shiva.
10. Ritual chant and prayer ( mantra)
11. Use of the 'holy water'
12. Immersion of water: As a ritual of being re-born!
13. The concept of 'born-again'( Upanayana)
14. The concept of Sin ( paap)
15. The concept of the opposite of Sin ( punya)
15. The concept of Reincarnation
16. The concept of Avataars ( Divine Reincarnation)
17. Cross legged meditation
18. Controlling body metabolism through breathing ( pranayama)
19. Vegetarianism
20. Dairy products
21. Use of herbal medicine ( Ayurveda)
22. Concept and definition of God
23. Concept of understanding Right/Wrong as against Good/Evil.
24. Concept of zero and infinity
25. Concept of the Spirit ( Tantric Chakra)
26. Concept of ahimsa ( non-violence)
27. Concept of complete renunciation ( sadhu )
28. Concept of unarmed defence techniques
29. Concept of cosmic time.
30. Concept of cyclical nature of creation and destruction.
31. Concept of the Holy fire
32. Marriage as a religious ritual
33. Concept of symbolic sacrificial offering
34. Concept of righteous living
35 Concept of salvation ( moksha)
35. Concept of parables ( to teach concepts)
36. Concept of organised and logical grammar and syntax in language.
37. Celestial charts to map time and record events. ( Astrology / Astronomy)
38. Concept of the plough in agriculture
39. Concept of the pulley.
40. Concept of the wheel.
41. Concept of the chariot.
42. Concept of mounted animals in war
43. Use of Gold and Diamond in Jewelry.
44. Song - the 7 basic notes
45. Dance- methodical styles
46. Song as prayer.
47. Concept of undersea world
48. Temple architecture principles
49. Concept of organised society
49. Concept of charity ( anna-dana)
50. Concept of periodic flooding
51. Concept of power of gem stones.
52. Concept of pH balanced diet
53. Concept of fitness regime(yoga)
54. Concept of levitation
55. Concept of the aircraft (vimana)
56. Concept of the disc.
57. Concept of the umbrella (in vamana avataar)
58. Concept of slippers
59. Concept of washing of feet of guests
60. Concept of welcome drink.
61. Concept of equality of religions
62. Concept of equality of power of prayer.
63. Concept of a single Supreme God.
64. Concept of women as equals.
65. Concept of women as goddesses.
66. Concept of angels and fairies.
67. Concept of town guardian angels
68. Concept of destiny
69. Concepts to rationalise existence of suffering.
70. Concept of the soul.
71. Concept of virgin motherhood
72. Concept of 'son of god'
73. Concept of self-immolation
74. Concept of cremation-hygienic disposal
75. Concept of rhythm and poetry to pass on knowledge
76. Concept of illusion (maya)
77. Concept of zodiac signs
78. Concept of astrological segmentation
79. System of studying character attributes (psychographics)
80. Concept of scholarly debating
81. Concepts to understand animal and bird language.
82. Concept of understanding attributes of fruits and vegetables.
83. Concepts of understanding 'poison'
84. Concept of magnetic alignment.
85. Concept of several suns.
86. Concept of galaxies.
87. Concept of Universe
88. Concept of 'as many stars as grains of sand'
89. Concept of cosmic balance
90. Concept of cyclicity in evolution (as against linearity)
91. Concept of singing as therapy.
92. Concept of weaving
93. Concept of unstitched clothing
94. Concept of siren ( conch blowing)
95. Concept of purity of water.
96. Concept of using water as a therapeutic.
97. Concept of surgery.
98. Concept of transplants.
99. Concepts on theories of war.
100.Philosophy
101.Concept of school!
102. Concept of sages ( holy men)
103. Concept of oracle.
104. Concept of demons
105. Concept of prostration
106. Concept of the atom
107. Concept of mass destruction
108. Concept of the laser
109. Concept of the third eye
110. Romantic stories
111. Concept of judgement day.
112. Concept of kingdom of gods (Indra)
113. Concept of transmigration of souls
114. Concept of genetic mapping
115. Concept of cross species breeding
116. Eradication of cannibalism in society
117. Eradication of slavery in society
118. Eradication of apartheid in society
119. Rule by 'council of chiefs'
120. Concept of non-residential education
121. Concept of fees for services rendered ( guru-dakshina)
122. Concept of dynastic rule.
123. Concept of classification of rulers
124. Concept of tank irrigation as a means to sustain water levels.
125. Hygiene rules to ward off disease.
126. Concept of Judgement day.
127. Concept of law
128. Concept of calibrated punishment
129. Concept of exile
130. Concept of atonement
131. Concepts in telepathy
132. Concepts in exorcism
133. Concept of voluntary timed non-suicidal death
134. Concept of religious council
135. Concept of several heavens
136. Concept of hell.
137. Concept of 'ancestor appeasement'
138. Concept of ministerial council and advisors.
139. Concept of non-surgical internal healing
140. Concept of board games
141. Herbal cosmetics
142. Concept of 'other world' beings.
143. Concept of 'divine boons'
144. Rules of war
145. Concept of community feeding
146. Concept of 'non-converting' religion
147. Concept of nectar
148. Concept of immortality
149. Concepts linking food and psychology
150. Concept of universal tolerance.

Intelligent Design

The Intelligent Design argument is sometimes put forward by many creationalists (creationalists are ppl who belive that God 'created' this world) to support the existence of God. The main argument goes like "A universe cannot comeout of itself from nothing, and there has to be a creator for everything present. Its then natural that universe too should have a creator. Not to say all this requires the cause to be intelligent"

But there are many gaps between the theory of Intelligent design, with a Intelligent creator(lets call it IC) and the concept of God according to Sematic religions(lets call this COGS)

1. In the context of Intellgent Cause(IC), it can be either be personal or impersonal. But in the case of Concept of God according to Sematic religions(COGS), the God is a personal God.

ie., not only exists a COGS, but he has a history, he has a will, he has certain preferences. He created the world at some time, he plans to destroy it at some time; he sends different prophets from time to time etc etc. So COGS is not just there, but is 'personal' in nature.

But the IC does not require the God to be personal. It can be impersonal as well. Like a fire may burn a house. Here the cause is there, the effect is there. But the fire does not think "I have to burn this, so I will do so".

Even if the IC is personal in nature, it still does not establish the relationship between the claimed history about COGS and what may be of IC. For example the IC may be a completely different person, who created this world in another time, with other persons, and is not willing to send any messengers, and is enjoying the show. M_a_y be. Proving right of IC does not automatically prove that it is the same IC that created Adam etc etc.

So the IC does not necessarily endorse COGS.

2. Now coming to the other argument that "every existing object must have a creator", or put in other words "every effect must have a cause"

Should every existing object have a creator.

If Yes then God can be the creator of this Universe. But then God is also existing, so God too requires a creator. So the question props up "who created God?"

If No, and say God does not need a creator, then we agree that for something to exist there is no need of a creator. So the universe too does not need a creator.

Either way you end up proving the redundancy of a creator God.

3. The other arguments which go with it are "see how wonderful the world is; is has to be the work of a genius"

But here again we are limiting our area of judgement to a very limited area. When we look at the universe, most of it is choas. Millions of stars destroyed, millions created; many colliding etc etc. It is but natural that in a universe that vast, there will be a corner which is relatioevely safe is where intelligent life has been possible. But even this compared to the cosmological time scales is nothing, and will not last forever. So it can be equally attributed to matter of chance as to an "intelligent being".

Difference between Karma and Dharma

Dharma is the Cosmic rythm, and Karma can be called one subset of it.

Karma is just a law, whether you like it not, it simply is there, but where as Dharma includes the application part also with respect to individual.

Wherther you know your Karma or not, it simply works. But Dharms is abt making our life knowingly or unknowingly tuned to it.

Suppose we are boat in ocean. The wind simply blows. It is its principle, and also the way our boat moves to that air is dependent on the factor of how fact keep your sail. If you oppse wind it is slow, and align it is fast. It is a law, and simply follows. Karma is also similar. It simply follows.

But Dharma is also about understanding this phenomenon and its implications and thus aligning our boat to the direction of the wind so that we move faster in tune with the cosmic principle.

Implications of Law of Karma

Law of Karma in my view is simle law of cause and effect. For every action of yours whether physical or spiritual will bear its results.

Karma is a concept that puts the reason for Fate/Luck of man on the himslef and not on God. God is all the neutral, and it is our own good/bad acts of the past that we are bearing the results today. I would not go into the technicalities of Karma, but will focus on its implications:

Karma is a Destiny: Many times we do not why one person is say born wealthy and another poor; why some have good luck, why some have bad fate. Karma says that the reason is not the partiality of God, but our own past acts.

Karma is a oppurtuniy: If the present is the result of the past, then it is follows that the future will be a result of the present. So it is an oppurtunity to us build our glorious future, by working now.

Karma is a warning: Karma is a warning that no bad act of ours will go without we paying the penality for it.

Karma is an Assurance: Karma assures that no good act ever goes waste. It may not bear results immediately, or in a manner we can see, but it is bound to produce results.

Analogy: Two persons X and Y are there. Both start working, and used to get 10k per month. X used to spend away this money, while Y used to carefully spend it, and also work harder and earn more money. After the end of one year, X has nothing as saving, but Y has more than one lac. Our X now starts crying foul that by destiny he has no money, but Y has so much money. He conviently forgets the past, but only remembers the present. But in reality, it is their own makings that left them there. The destiny of today is the cumulative of yesterdays freewills. Sister Nivedita says Karma is no longer a destiny but a opputunity. This idea sums it all.

But again, if X wants to earn big money, it IS possible for him.

Importance of understanding Karma:
Many view Karma as a fatalistic theory, and just attribute all their shortcomings to the Karma. When asked questions like "why did fail in this?", the answer one usually gets is "ah.. what could I do; it is my Karma, so I failed?"

This is one of the peculiarities of the human mind.. it tries to find easy ways out to justify its laziness or other weaknesses. To take the responsibility of failure needs real strength.

For example take the verse from Gita "do your actions, and leave the results unto me..."

We selectively remember only the second half of it... "leave the results unto me". Why don’t you work for your studies?"... "ah, what can I do, it is in God's hands"

True the results are in God's hands. But is that all Shri Krishna says. He says "Do the work and leave the results unto me". But we conveniently forget the first half of it. It is the results that we leave to God, not the work itself.

This is one extreme of it. There is another extreme.... take every failure personally.

I see many interested young people with some enthusiasm to do something for India etc. They do try also. But they may try for a month or maximum a year. They do not see any results (naturally, Society does not change overnight. It takes some decades), so get disheartened and become cynicists... "ooff nobody can save this country". This is coz they do not think that their effort is really yielding any results; they lose faith in the powers of goodness.

Both the extremes are bad. Karma is unique philosophy which combines both free-will and destiny. It acts as a shock absorber to the man when he is faced with a difficulty. "it was my Karma that I lost my relative".. thus saving the man from excessive self-criticism (after all there are many things in this world which happen to us without we being directly responsible for it). It also gives man hope to work for “I am sure that no good work ever goes waste, it is bound to give results. My work might not have given results today, but it will surely one day”

I think it is very important that the present day Indians understand the real implications of the theory of Karma.

Dharma

This is a great discussion on Hindu-Buddhist Dharma in a book by Pirsig. Found on net.

Just for curiosity's sake Phredrus decided to see if aret was in it. He looked under the "a" words and was disappointed. Then he noted a statement that said that the Greeks were not the most faithful to the Proto-IndoEuropean spelling. Among other sins, they added the prefix "a" to many of the Proto-IE roots. He checked this out by looking for aret under "r." This time a door opened.

The Proto-Indo-European root of aret was the morpheme rt. There, beside areti, was a treasure room of other derived "rt" words: "arithmetic," "aristocrat," "art," "rhetoric," "worth," "rite," "ritual," "wright," "right (handed)" and "right (correct)." All of these words except arithmetic seemed to have a vague thesaurus-like similarity to Quality. Phredrus studied them carefully, letting them soak in, trying to guess what sort of concept, what sort of way of seeing the world, could give rise to such a collection. When the morpheme appeared in aristocrat and arithmetic the reference was to "firstness." Rt meant first. When it appeared in art and wright it seemed to mean "created" and "of beauty." "Ritual" suggested repetitive order. And the word right has two meanings: "righthanded" and "moral and esthetic correctness." When all these meanings were strung together a fuller picture of the ft morpheme emerged. Rt referred to the "first, created, beautiful repetitive order of moral and esthetic correctness."

There was just one thing wrong with this Proto-Indo-European discovery, something Phredrus had tried to sweep under the carpet at first, but which kept creeping out again. The meanings, grouped together, suggested something different from his interpretation of arete. They suggested "importance" but it was an importance that was formal and social and procedural and manufactured, almost an antonym to the (Dynamic) Quality he was talking about. Rt meant "quality" all right but the quality it meant was static, not Dynamic. He had wanted it to come out the other way, but it looked as though it wasn't going to do it. Ritual. That was the last thing he wanted arete to turn out to be. Bad news.

It was in this gloomy mood, while he was thinking about all the interpretations of the rt morpheme, that yet another "find" came. He had thought that surely this time he had reached the end of the Quality-arete-rt trail. But then from the sediment of old memories his mind dredged up a word he hadn't thought about or heard of for a long time:

R-ta. It was a Sanskrit word, and Phredrus remembered what it meant: R-ta was the "cosmic order of things." Then he remembered he had read that the Sanskrit language was considered the most faithful to the Proto-Indo-European root, probably because the linguistic patterns had been so carefully preserved by the Hindu priests.

He thought he'd forgotten all those words years ago, but now here was Rta, back again. Rta, from the oldest portion of the Rg Veda, which was the oldest known writing of the Indo-Aryan language. The sun god, Surya, began his chariot ride across the heavens from the abode of rta. Varuna, the god for whom the city in which Phredrus was studying was named (Varanasi), was the chief support of rta.

Varuna was omniscient and was described as ever witnessing the truth and falsehood of men-as being "the third whenever two plot in secret." He was essentially a god of righteousness and a guardian of all that is worthy and good.

The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe. Rta is both. This was exactly what the Metaphysics of Quality was claiming. It was not a new idea. It was the oldest idea known to man.

This identification of rta and arete was enormously valuable, Phredrus thought, because it provided a huge historical panorama in which the fundamental conflict between static and Dynamic Quality had been worked out. It answered the question of why arete meant ritual. R-ta also meant ritual. But unlike the Greeks, the Hindus in their many thousands of years of cultural evolution had paid enormous attention to the conflict between ritual and freedom. Their resolution of this conflict in the Buddhist and Vedantist philosophies is one of the profound achievements of the human mind.

The original meaning of rta, during what is called the Brahmana period of Indian history, underwent a change to extremely ritualistic static patterns more rigid and detailed than anything heard of in Western religion. . As Hiriyanna wrote, "All that came to be insisted upon was a scrupulous carrying out of every detail connected with the various rites; and the good result accruing from them, whether here or elsewhere, was believed to follow automatically from it. . . . Ritualistic punctilio thus comes to be placed on the same level as natural law and moral rectitude."

You don't have to look far in the modern world to find similar conditions, Phredrus thought.

But what made the Hindu experience so profound was that this decay of Dynamic Quality into static quality was not the end of the story. Following the period of the Brahmanas came the Upanishadic period and the flowering of Indian philosophy. Dynamic Quality reemerged within the static patterns of Indian thought.

"Rta," Hiriyanna had written, "almost ceased to be used in Sanskrit; but. . . under the name of dharma, the same idea occupies a very important place in the later Indian views of life also."

Dharma, like Rta, means "what holds together." It is the basis of all order. It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition which gives man perfect satisfaction.

Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed by others. It is not any artificial set of conventions which can be amended or repealed by legislation. Neither is it internal duty which is arbitrarily decided by one's own conscience. Dharma is beyond all questions of what is internal and what is external. Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of "rightness" which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has created.

Within the Hindu tradition dharma is relative and dependent on the conditions of society. It always has a social implication (not strictly true). It is the bond which holds society together. This is fitting to the ancient origins of the term. But within modern Buddhist thought dharma becomes the phenomenal world-the object of perception, thought or understanding. A chair, for example, is not composed of atoms of substance, it is composed of dharmas.

This statement is absolute jabberwocky to a conventional subjectobject metaphysics. How can a chair be composed of individual little moral orders? But if one applies the Metaphysics of Quality and sees that a chair is an inorganic static pattern and sees that all static patterns are composed of value and that value is synonymous with morality then it all begins to make sense.

It resulted from the working out, centuries ago, of the problem of dharma and the way in which it combines freedom and ritual. In the West progress seems to proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual. A revolution of freedom against old rituals produces a new order, which soon becomes another old ritual for the next generation to revolt against, on and on. In the Orient there are plenty of conflicts but historically this particular kind of conflict has not been as dominant. Phredrus thought it was because dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction.

==============

This is why Hindus are both ritualistic but also extremely open to change, and why they typically don't murder each other over religious disagreements. The Arya Samaj and the Vaishnavites are further apart than the Shias and the Sunnis, and they will often virulently disagree on things. But they won't bomb each other.

This is also why most Hindus are quite resistant to literalism. The discussion above isn't focused on this aspect of Hinduism, but Hindus find it ridiculous that a "Static Quality" book can encompass "Dynamic Quality." Doesn't mean the book is useless. Just means it is incomplete at best, even if God himself authored it.

English has no word for Dharma. The Hindu name for Hinduism is Sanatan Dharma (loosely translated as Eternal Religion).

Why did God create the Cosmos

Question: Why did God create the Cosmos

Reply:
Firstly, Hindus does not believe in creation. Gita expounds Atman as that which is not created, nor destroyed, that which fire cannot burn etc etc...

We believe in Projection. One form projecting itself as another form. To give an example, the energy and mass is constant in this universe. So, no mass is 'created', energy simply changes its form into mass, thus giving the feelig that something is created. But every this type of 'creation' is also accomanied with the idea of dissolution.

Western idea of time itself is a linear reality, which leaves the question of a beginning and ending. But Indian concept of time is a circular reality.(I am just stating, I too dont know why)

Now coming to the question of "why does this happen"

I am quoting the answer of Swami Vivekananda "first we have to understand this that the very asking of the question "why" presupposes that everything round us has been preceded by certain things and will be succeeded by certain other things. The other belief involved in this question is that nothing in the universe is independent, that everything is acted upon by something outside itself. Interdependence is the law of the whole universe. In asking what caused the Absolute, what an error we are making! To ask this question we have to suppose that the Absolute also is bound by something, that It is dependent on something; and in making this supposition, we drag the Absolute down to the level of the universe. For in the Absolute there is neither time, space, nor causation; It is all one. That which exists by itself alone cannot have any cause. That which is free cannot have any cause; else it would not be free, but bound. That which has relativity cannot be free. Thus we see the very question, why the Infinite became the finite, is an impossible one, for it is self-contradictory."

But Vedanta does not finilize that this why cannot be known. What it says is it cannot be known in this state. To know the answer, you have to be first be free. If I want to know the reason why I got bound into a room, I have to first go out the room to know the reason.

Here I dont mean God being unkowable in the manner Agnostics refer to it. God is known yet unknown at the same time. Like say time...you do not know what exactly time is, yet at the same time you know what it is.

I hope following text from a lecture of SV will further explain your question, according to the school of Advaita Vedanta.

"The first is the question of creation, that this nature, Prakriti, Mâyâ is infinite, without beginning. It is not that this world was created the other day, not that a God came and created the world and since that time has been sleeping; for that cannot be. The creative energy is still going on. God is eternally creating — is never at rest. Remember the passage in the Gita where Krishna says, "If I remain at rest for one moment, this universe will be destroyed." If that creative energy which is working all around us, day and night, stops for a second, the whole thing falls to the ground. There never was a time when that energy did not work throughout the universe, but there is the law of cycles, Pralaya. Our Sanskrit word for creation, properly translated, should be projection and not creation. For the word creation in the English language has unhappily got that fearful, that most crude idea of something coming out of nothing, creation out of nonentity, non-existence becoming existence, which, of course, I would not insult you by asking you to believe. Our word, therefore, is projection.

The whole of this nature exists, it becomes finer, subsides; and then after a period of rest, as it were, the whole thing is again projected forward, and the same combination, the same evolution, the same manifestations appear and remain playing, as it were, for a certain time, only again to break into pieces, to become finer and finer, until the whole thing subsides, and again comes out. Thus it goes on backwards and forwards with a wave-like motion throughout eternity. Time, space, and causation are all within this nature. To say, therefore, that it had a beginning is utter nonsense. No question can occur as to its beginning or its end. Therefore wherever in our scriptures the words beginning and end are used, you must remember that it means the beginning and the end of one particular cycle; no more than that"

Is Re-incarnation a reality?

Ratan's post on this:

Several Hindu schools propound faith in rei. So do Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Gnostic Xians too. So did schools of the Ancient Greek and Roman religions. Plato, for one.

Depending on your belief system there can be several types of reincarnation - increasing sentience only, no changes in sentience, immutable soul or non-immutable soul. Different Hindus hold to different faiths, but the most popular one is an immutable (indestructable) soul with sentience that can increase or decrease.

Reincarnation is one logical natural consequence of believing in life after death, which is why many religions Eastern and non-Eastern traditions subscribe to it -

Q: Is there a soul?
A1: No (some Nastik Hindus). Therefore there is no such thing as reincarnation either.
A2: Yes.

Q: Does the soul expire with the body?
A1: Yes (other Nastik Hindus). Again, no reincarnation.
A2: No. It survives the body.

Q: Can a soul reside in another body (as opposed to a USED bit that gets flipped)?
A1: No. Again, no rei.
A2: Yes. It could.

Q: Does a soul routinely go from body to body?
A1: No, there is a finite rei.
A2: Yes, it does.

Q: Can a soul be unbound to a body?
A1 (99% of Hindus): Yes.
A2: No.

Q: In what situations can a soul be unbound to a body?
A1: "When" in transition (though "when" is not necessarily in the normal human sense of time).
A2: When it merges with God (Bg. Gita).
A3: When it "ceases" to be. Becomes Zero. (The Buddhist idea, but remember that in Buddhism Zero or Vaccum is *not* the same as Nothingness, or put another way Nothing is also Something).

My reply to the same question when asked by a Chrsitian (so the you there may be referring to christians in some contexts)

Theoritical: Re-incarnation & the Law of Karma are the logical conclusion one will come to while trying to understand the myteries of human life.

Let us first take the case of a small child who dies immediately after the death. Then what will happen to him. Will he go to hell or heaven. According to catholics, as he carries the original sin, and not baptised, he will go to hell. This not just not fair. Why should the child go to hell for no fault of him. The proptestians mostly believe that he will go to heaven, as he did not do any wrong. But is it that he did not do anything wrong, or is it that he did not get any chance to do anything wrong? This way this child went to heaven, without any test, where as others has to go thru a test. So, this makes God partial, which cannot be. So this is also not correct. But Re-incarnation on the other hand explains this without any difficulty, that he will be given one more chance.

The logic is simple, if a test is cancelled, the student can neither be passed, nor be failed, but should be given another chance.

Lets take another case of a person who is born in say India a 1000 years back. There is no way this person is going to know about the son of the God, his saviour. He follows just a life his surroundings teach him. So, eventually he may land up in hell.

But is it his mistake, that he is born there in India or was born 1000 back. It is not his, then whose it is. It is of the person who controls where and how each and every person is born. SO, then why should he be held responsible for the later events which just follow the initial events, and be sent to hell?

The third case is of two person one rich and another poor. One does not have any need to steal as he has plenty and so lives a rightful life. The other is poor and perhaps forced to do wrong things. Then is it the fault of the poor guy that the [b]testing surroundings[/b] are different.

The possible answer to this is whether rich or poor, the god will save us from damnation if asked for mercy. But is the god like a boss in our office who is going to reward us not on the basis of what I do, but how I praise him. Will he only accept my application if I address it as Christ, and reject it if I address it as Rama? God has to be, and IS just. So, we have to be judged on the basis of what we do: as we sow, so we reap. This is the Law of Karma.

Practical: You may find some case studies here:

Could a Little Boy Be Proof of Reincarnation?

Children Who Remember Previous Lives by Ian Stevenson

There are many more, but for the time-being I cud only find these. Ahyhow I guess even a single case is enough to prove the possibility.

Biblical:

John 3,3, "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again";

John 9,2, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?";

Matthew 11,14 and 17,12-13, concerning the identity of John the Baptist;
This concerns the identity of John the Baptist, supposed to be the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah. In Matthew 11,14 Jesus says: "And if you are willing to accept it, he (John the Baptist) is the Elijah who was to come." In the same Gospel, while answering the apostles about the coming of Elijah, Jesus told them: "But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." The commentary adds: "Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist." (Matthew 17,12-13; see also Mark 9,12-13)

Some more abt the Karma theory:

Galatians 6,7, "A man reaps what he sows".

Matthew 26,52, ”all who draw the sword will die by the sword”.

Revelation 13,10, ”If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed.”

You can find more such refences from Bible on this subject here.

Hinduism and Hindutva

If we try to understand this issue in terms of ppl and organizations, it will continue to puzzle us. Instead if we try understanding it from the ideas and concepts that are working behind, it will be helpful. Different organizations do not come without any basis. If some are able to withstand and increase their influence, it is necessary for us to look at the reasons behind this.

If you look at the Hindu history, from the last 1000 years, it has been a history of suffering, defeat, persecution, foreign rule etc. After such a long time, the Hindus are free now, free to rule themselves. But the old injuries have been too deep to heal so soon. Actually I am amazed at the tolerance they have shown, as compared to how any other would have reacted. But this freedom has also not brought the expected Hindu reassertion, and stand hijacked by the Leftist

If we look at History, there are three major factors in my view which has influenced the present form of Hinduism. All these factors have good/bad aspects in them. I am NOT trying to say that these developments are bad. They have been necessary.

First is the Bhakti Movement. No doubt it is singly responsible for helping the Hinduism overcome the Islamic challenge, and making Hinduism more approachable and near to the masses. But this also resulted in the undermining of the importance of philosophy and reasoning attitude. God has become more a matter of belief than a matter of understanding.

The second, which very few admit is that the whole of the Hindu leadership has been replaced by 'lower' castes in the recent times. In old times if it has been the lower castes who converted to escape caste oppression, in recent times it has been the turn of the upper castes to turn to Marxism. This is not surprising also. The upper castes have been repeatedly told that they have oppressed the other. This brought guilt feeling in them, and most ppl started moving away from their identity, which they felt was not something great to be associated with.

But the unfortunate reality has been that most of the philosophical basis of Hinduism has been preserved exclusively with Brahmins. Once this started fading away, the prominence of belief in Hinduism increased.

The third factor is the recognition of importance of organized effort by Hindus. This was the most important and wanted improvement for the good of Hindus, as it is said that no two Hindus cannot live together. Even in the whole of the History, most defeats of Hindus has been due to the treachery of some Hindus to the enemies. So the coming together of the Hindu religion, of the idea of being a Hindu overwriting the idea of being a Shiva, Viashnava, Advaitic, Dualistic. But the problem is that there is also the danger of becoming more centralized, more uniform.

What we are seeing in the present Hindu society is a combination of these factors. Add to this the semantic influences of a monotheistic God on one side, and the European ideas of liberty, reason on other.

The Hindu society struggling to gain freedom again, and assert itself. The more it is stopped, the more the piled up anger of hundred of years will seek expression. Each act of aggression a reason more for it to feel the need to protect itself. And unfortunately these sentiments are ignored by the policy makers, and the more they are ignored, the more their anger grows. It can be noted that all 'intellectuals' talk about growth of fundamentalism, but none cares to look into the specific Hindu grievances. Such acts of total negligence add fuel to fire. Being a fundamentalist is not the hobby of people.

Such things should not start in the first place. But once they start, they have peculiar dynamics. If their demands are not met, their anger increases. If they are agreed, their ego increases, wanting more.

But still inspite of all this, these ppl have too much of Hindu blood in them. You can note that the strongest of criticism that comes about other religions only restricts itself to how others have suppressed them, and how they need to be thaught a lesson. The tone is more of revenge, and of continued suppression, but it never religious. Even the poster boys of media for Hindutva like togadia etc dont dare to call other religions as false, and their alone as true religion(a word which Hindus are very used to hear from others)

In the midst of all this chaos I feel that the future India is slowly emerging, which will be more stronger that it ever was. They have been in the state of tamas, sleep for many years. Now they are slowly awakening. The first step is from Tamas to Rajas, which is happening now. The second phase will be transformation from Rajas to Sattva. There is likely to be a great change in her outer body, but the essential spirit will remain. It is in the midst of a transition phase. The challenge before her is to bridge the gap between her ancient wisdom and the newly acquired prominence of ideas of liberty, reason, science, democracy. The work has already been started my many ppl like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Auribondo, Swami Dayananda etc.

Should we afaid of losing our Culture?

Should we be afraid of losing our culture??

Let me rephrase this a little

Is Hinduism under threat? YES (yelling)

Should we be afraid of losing our culture? No

Our fear only symbolizes our lack of faith in the strength of Hinduism. It is not a simple aaira-gaira set of dogmas that starts stumbling just by little noise. It has seen many challenges in the past and has overcome them, it will in the future also.

To be overwhelmed by a challenge is the first step towards acceptance of defeat.

We have to take this up not as a threat, but as a challenge. What Hindus want is an attitudinal change. Instead of passivity, activity; for the standards of weakness, standards of strength; in the place of steadily yielding defense, the ringing cheer of a invading host. Merely to change the attitude of the mind, in this way, is already to accomplish a revolution, coz no man or nation need be weak unless he chooses, no man or nation need perish unless he deliberately chooses extinction.

If we can do that, then we will no longer be besieged by the problems in front of us, and will be more than willing to shy away from challenges, as then struggle itself would have become only the first step towards a distant victory to be won.

I dont mean that the Hindus need not do anything, and all things will be done by themselves. It is the problem of we Hindus, we alone have to tackle it. But the attitude should not of fear or inferiority feeling. It should be done with a boldness and confidence, and with attitude that result is decided, the details remain to be worked out.

Satyakama

Friday, August 19, 2005

Index of all my blogs

Essence of Hindu Spirituality