Primal

Religious atheist? Cultural christian? Hogwash, Just because on a certain day I choose to get presents and eat a feast that makes me culturally a Christian? That doesn't even make sense, seeing as Xianity is a religious belief system that I do not adhere to. If Hinuwomen wants to celebrate certain holidays from the Hindu religion, go for it. I only object to the label "secular Hindu" as nonsensical. To say that participating in a holiday makes one religious is to use the term religious very, very loosely. There are other reasons to participate in a holiday then either adherence to or preference for a religious belief. Like for example, free food,presents etc. It is no conveniant for me to get free food and presents on a Hindu holiday because I don't know any Hindu's. Also there is the question of habit, and habit does not automatically equal religion.

As for the Hindus who don't believe in Gods, I'd like a link to that. I would most likely also consider that an ify case, since Hinuism is defined in part by the Vedas and the Vedas speak of Gods. Though I can see how some people may believe in Brahman, Atman etc, without believing in the Gods: I would be reluctant to call them Hindus. I suppose I can compare this to Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarian/Universalists and Xianity.

In any case belief in Brahman, Atman etc. can definately not be called secular, even if they can be called atheistic. That is because the ideas have something to do with a belief in "the sacred", the sacred being something supernatural/unknowable etc. Religion is in fact defined as a belief system promoting an idea of the Saced in such a way as to give meaning to life. Hence any belief system based on some nonrational, untestable, nonnatural, nonknowable concept like reincarnation, karma, brahman or atman cannot be considered secular no matter how many Gods you take out.

miscreant

It makes sense if you're not so blind that you can't notice that, regardless of what you wish to believe, the religion does influence the culture you live in.

It doesn't make you christian, but you obviously have christian influences in your life... otherwise why do you choose to celebrate those specific holidays?

Maybe hinduwoman is just a little more honest than you and is willing to accept the role religion has played in her background and the society she lives in.

Miscreant

roshan

the sankhya system only believes in the soul, they dont believe in brahman or any of the gods. and is an old sect.
<a href="http://www.hinduism.co.za/philosop.htm#The%20Sankhya" target="_blank">http://www.hinduism.co.za/philosop.htm#The%20Sankhya</a>

"Non-acceptance of Isvara or God

The Sankhya system is called Nir-Isvara (God-less) Sankhya. It is atheistic. The Sankhyas do not believe in Isvara. They do not accept Isvara (God). The creation produced by Prakriti has an existence of its own, independent of all connection with the particular Purusha to which it is united. So the Sankhyas say that there is no need for an intelligent Creator of the world, or even of any superintending power."

phaedrus

Samkhya was an interesting school of thought.....From Britannica

-------------
Also spelled Sankhya, Sanskrit Samkhya (“Enumeration,” or “Number”) one of the six orthodox systems (darshans) of Indian philosophy (q.v.). Samkhya adopts a consistent dualism of the orders of matter (prakriti) and soul, or self (purusha). The two are originally separate, but in the course of evolution purusha mistakenly identifies itself with aspects of prakriti. Right knowledge consists of the ability of purusha to distinguish itself from prakriti.

Although many references to the system are given in earlier texts, Samkhya received its classical form and expression in the Samkhya-karika s (“Stanzas of Samkhya”) by I svarakr s na (c. 3rd century AD). Vijñanabhiksu wrote an important treatise on the system in the 16th century.

In Samkhya there is belief in an infinite number of similar but separate purushas (“selves”), no one superior to the other. Purusha and prakriti being sufficient to explain the universe, the existence of a god is not hypothesized. The purusha is ubiquitous, all-conscious, all-pervasive, motionless, unchangeable, immaterial, and without desire. Prakriti is the universal and subtle (i.e., unmanifest) matter, or nature, and, as such, is determined only by time and space.

The chain of evolution begins when purusha impinges on prakriti, much as a magnet draws unto itself iron shavings. The purusha, which before was pure consciousness without an object, becomes focused on prakriti, and out of this is evolved mahat (“great one”) or buddhi (“spiritual awareness”). Next to evolve is the individualized ego consciousness (ahankara, “I-maker”), which imposes upon the purusha the misapprehension that the ego is the basis of the purusha's objective existence.

The ahankara further divides into the five gross elements (space, air, fire, water, earth), the five fine elements (sound, touch, sight, taste, smell), the five organs of perception (with which to hear, touch, see, taste, smell), the five organs of activity (with which to speak, grasp, move, procreate, evacuate), and mind, or thought (manas). The universe is the result of the combinations and permutations of these various principles, to which the purusha is added.

Largely outside the above system stands that of the three primal qualities of matter that are called gunas (“qualities”). They make up the prakriti but are further important principally as physiopsychological factors. The highest one is sattva, which is illumination, enlightening knowledge, and lightness; the second is rajas, which is energy, passion, and expansiveness; the third is tamas (“darkness”), which is obscurity, ignorance, and inertia. To these correspond moral models: to tamas that of the ignorant and lazy man; to rajas that of the impulsive and passionate man; to sattva the enlightened and serene man.

--------------

hinduwoman

Heavy psycho-analysis coming on!!! Move out of the way or be rolled over!


Primal, as I explained my calling myself a cultural Hindu is an emotional affair, not a rational one. It is an attachment to the entire history and civilization of India, which is defined largely in Hindu terms, which I feel has shaped my identity. Much of my everyday values came not only from science and exposure to the Western world but the influences around me. The fact that much of these influences were social forces based on religion does not make their influence any less valid. To take an example, one of my friends wrote her philosophy master's thesis on Gita! she is not interested in religion but on the implication of the injunction that "Do your work for the sake of work without desiring any fruits of it". I do not think any Western rationalist would have come up with such a thesis; my friend did because she lived in an atmosphere where this saying from a religious text is a core maxim.
Also, identity is defined in two ways, it seems to me: what you think yourself to be and what others in your society think you are. After all it is no good if only you and your family think you are an American citizen; the USA govt. has to agree as well. I think I am a Hindu though I don't accept the religion, and others in my society (majority at any rate) knowing that I don't accept the religion think that I am a Hindu. The fact that some professor from outside the culture insists that I do not meet his specifications is not pertinent.

Of course to be honest I would not insisted so much on my Hindu identity if at present Muslims and Christians were not being so aggressive. Also there are Marxists running around screaming that if you are a materialist you must be a Marxist, sharing all their fantasies. So it is a kind of return to rooots and demonstrating you have no intention of accepting any three of the cultures they are trying to foist on you.
Finally it is easier to be on good terms with Hinduism. During the last 100 years attitudes towards disbelief had been pretty lax which means no one is trying to bring you back to god. Even if the orthodox are convinced you will burn in hell they have no intention of burning you on this earth which is all I am concerned with. They are not even rude. Unlike the behaviour of many Christians who turn up on this board there is no open conflict with religious Hindus; perhaps that is one reason why we do not feel compelled to cut off all ties. Of course I have not tried to live in really conservative rural areas for months at a stretch, but the general principle holds.

hinduwoman

The Supreme Court does distinguish between religion and culture precisely because there are many of us who feel this way. It laid down that "Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion." Interestingly since this was in 1995 it left out the castesystem, but I bet if this was 1795 it would have put that bit in too. The problem is that there is no way to define what is the essence of Hindu religion as there is in Christianity; that is why they had to ask a court to define it. But that is the definition of religion. When it came to atheists it held that unless a Hindu actively embraces a religion that says it is the only true way, the Hindu remains a Hindu.
This insistence of being atheists yet Hindus in early Indian civilization made no sense; there were no other civilizations against which to measure oneself. That concept got clarified only in comparison with Christianity and Islam. When in nineteenth century the first generations of Indians educated in European Enlightenment were raised up they insisted on being both.

No one considers belief in Brahman to be secular. You are getting confused because your experience has been with Christianity. In Christianity God, Bible, Soul and Heaven go hand in hand. But this is not necessarily the case with Asian religions whose roots are different.
For example, Buddhism and Jainism both of which originated in India are full fledged religions. But they DO NOT believe in God or heaven/hell and naturally not in literal Holy Writ. But they DO believe in souls and rebirth and the principle of karma. They are atheistic religions. Thus they do not think either that merely taking out gods or Universal Force makes them secular.

One of my grouses is that in the West very few people seem to be aware that there are various schools of Indian philosophy and that they do not negate the world. Instead often you have a full-fledged philosophy professor say something as stupid as "the West is the land of materialism, India of spiritualism and China of humanism" (He was a Chinese naturally). But this kind of belief is too wide-spread in West.
Hindus have two types of non-dualism, various dualistic schools, arguments over if salvation comes through good works alone or through devotion or grace or knowledge, the six-fold ways of worship in devotional mode, the cosmological significance of the greater gods --- but all that rich complexity is usually reduced to Hinduism regards world as a illusion. In fact most do not even understand what dharma is or the four aims of life. It makes any debate difficult.
There is also a hardcore materialist group of philosophers.
So I usually break out into a lecture trying to explain the concepts.

Dr. Jagan Mohan

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

Dr. Jagan Mohan

That is a common misconception that Low Caste Hindus must be reborn as 'Brahmins' in the 'next life' and then 'perhaps' be saved.

Enlightenment and Moksha can come at any moment. Jnana or true knowledge of the nature of the soul is the emancipating factor. A person can attain Moksha while living and not necessarily after death (Compare: Christians can only go to Heaven after death and judgement day).

Hinduism and Karma are wrongly understood by majority: Karma is simply cause and effect. THe Moment a person withdraws his sense organs from sensual pleasures and concentrates on his soul, while meditating on the Supreme Lord, he IMMEDIATELY attains Mukthi or emancipation from the bonds of samsara. There are intricate finnesse in Philosophy that defines and governs Mukthi and Moksha, and many schools of thought focuss on the 'critical point' of attaining Moksha, whether through Bakthi (or Devotion) or through Jnana Yoga (or Yoga of Knowledge) or Karma Yoga (or Yoga of selfless strivance).

You said ' Christians offer hope in the next life': We say: Hinduism offers not 'hope', but Mukthi/Moksha in this very moment! Not a second should be lost in persual of Dharma and Moksha. THat is the Aim and Purpose of Human Life.
If you are aiming for Heaven, and salvation: Good Luck to you. Hindus do not need neither Heaven nor Salvation from Sin. SInce for Hinduism, Sin in the highest view of this universe does not simply exist. Every Moment of life is potential gateway to Moksha. Every Second and every atomic work/thought you do decides the very future. Therefore salvation in 'next life' or 'thousands of lives' is not appropriate. Since all souls UNTIMATELY reach Moksha, it is understood that even the worst souls, maybe the soul of Hitler will ultimately gain Moksha, abeit thousands and thousands of existences more in order to cleanse the huge negative karma earned by it. Or Maybe in its next existence itself, but the 'Grace of God' or other ways which can nullify this huge Karma.

You said: 'All they could hope to do is suffer well': Even Suffering is treated differently in Hinduism: For a Hindu, pleasure and pain are one and the same, just two sides of the same coin. We accept that the worldly existence is tainted with suffering, some suffer more, some lesser, but nevertheless, the whole Samsara or business of living, dying, born again, goes on and on and in itself is suffering, and it does not matter if you are a low caste or high caste, whether King or Pauper: You cannot escape suffering. Bill Gates might be the worlds richest Man, but definetely not the Happiest. It is this that Hinduism tries to teach: That Pleasure and Suffering are transitory, one follows the other and therefore its a waste of time and Human life to pursue one and try to escape from other.

The Bhagavad Gita says: Ch XII

hinduwoman

Newsflash:
Just saw a matrimonial advertisement where a Hindu Christian wants a suitable Hindu Christian bride.
In this case chrisian is the religious label, but obviously he is using Hindu as a cultural tag.

Primal

This is ridiculous, hinduwomen you are presenting your views as if they are the viewpoints of all Hindus. Some do think the lower castes cannot reach moksha, some think women cannot, some think beef-eaters cannot,some think non-Indians cannot be Hindus.

Cultural Hinduism is bunk, just a misleading label, why don't you just say cultural Indian? It seems like you are also religious, which may make you Hindu but cultural HInduism sounds just as silly as being a cultural Jew. It's just a way of promoting your pet religion while conceding to atheist logic. You sound like a tribalist.