Jekyll

It's fine if we all read Hinduism and Buddhism as nonviolent. Probably it has less potential to be so. However, let us not forget that, in general, ALL major religions are basically non-violent at their core theology. As well, every "non-violent" religion has elements in it that can easily inspire violence. It's easy to orientalize eastern religions and deem them more "peaceful" than western, but this is not necessarily the case. Eastern religions have also been responsible for a good deal of violence and mistreatment. We may be able to write this off as political or social overlay, but we can also do the same for relgions like Christianity, when we really get down to it.

From what I know, Hinduism has been generally tolerant because it's had to be - they had invaders after invaders, and had to learn to live and adapt with them. They also have a more open ended theology, because the Puranas (sacred holy texts containing stories about the gods) are so vast that to date no one has been able to translate all of them.

This is also precicely the problem. There is no one, real, solid definition that we can give to Hinduism. It was a general term (like Shinto) given by outside invaders to define the whole of Indian religion. Indian religion, really, is a very regional thing. There is not a unifying consensus (or a unfying theme, if you will) like in Christianity. Therefore, some Indians are tolerant, and some aren't. Much the same can be said for Xtians in the U.S. Some are nice, some aren't. Some tout Christianity as basis for nationalism, just like some Indians in the nationalist party use the Ramayana as a rallying point for violence.

The situation is objective. On the whole I would say that "Hinduism" offers people more tolerance. However, the social structure that Hinduism supports is, well, horrible (caste, treatment of women, etc.) We can't romanticize India, nor can we completely seperate the social situation from the religion it is based on. It is important to take all these factors into account before defining Hinduism as a "peaceful" religion.

roshan

as i said in previous posts in this topic, the social structure of modern india is NOTHING like the social structure of the vedas, where women are supposed to be honored and worshipped, where there are many female sages and sometimes even warriors. the arthashastra actually condemns the practice of sati, and there isnt a single incident of child marriage in hindu texts.

the caste system of today is totally unsupported by the texts. it was merely a class system, where people had diff duties based on their occupation. untouchability is never even mentioned.

also, hinduism, although being very vast and diverse does have some unifying factors. for one, all the diff philosophies are based on the upanishads and the gita, the main philosophical works of hinduism. also, we have some beliefs in common, like karma, reincarnation, dharma, moksha etc.

as for the puranas - yeah, it is very vast, i have one of them, and it occupies 2 whole bookshelves. but the puranas arent important philosophical works anyway - they are just a mixture of prayers, myths, history with a little bit of philosophy here and there. only the upanishads and the gita are actually considered as important philosophical texts.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: roshan ]</p>

hinduwoman

Corwin, Please

All societies had builtin underclasses by virtue of birth. It was only in 20th century that equality really arrived in a big way. Just because the West has changed its ideology now, the Westerners are encouraged to forget their own history and regard hinduism as evil. the only uniquely worse thing is untouchability, but frankly no one expressed concern over them in the West until recently. Today, Just as in America, people are equal in theory but not in practice, so too in Hinduism today people are equal in theory but not in practice.

As for sati, orginally the women went gladly to the fire believing that it would transform them to goddesses. some even do now. What is hypocritical about it?

roshan

although hindu texts actually condemn sati, many women committed it due to the desperation of the times.

during islamic times, if their husbands died in war, who would protect them? they would be raped, dishonored, violated, and enslaved(by the muslims). if they were killed, they could be sure that they wouldnt get a proper hindu cremation, and that their body would be mutilated. so, all the women and children preferred to just drink some poison and burn themselves.(this was called jouhar - sort of a mass sati where anyone in a city who couldnt fight would burn themselves)

later on, specially during late islamic, british times and early years of independence, the people were so poor that when the husbands died, the women would no longer have any means to support themselves and live. furthermore, sati was considered an act of great love so if they comitted sati, they would literally be worshipped, and shrines erected in their honor.

however, hinduism, hindu sacred texts and hindu leaders and saints have never condoned sati.

roshan

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: roshan ]</p>

roshan

hinduism actually wasnt patriarchal during vedic times - even historians believe that it wasnt. there were at least 30 female sages who had a hand in writing and compiling the vedas, and the vedas speak of female warriors. even as late as the times of chandragupta maurya, women were still hired as part of the kings elite group of bodyguards(according to greek ambassador megasthenes). there was a persian emperor(forgot his name) who hired several female archers from india to be a part of his army after he conquered the indus valley.

also, although hindu texts do not mention child marriage, i dont really see child marriage as being evil. traditionally, the children only live together when they are older, and the marriage isnt consumated until much later on. mahatma gandhi himself was married as a child(he has some very interesting things to say about it in his autobiography.)

as for denying lower caste hindus access to texts - i guess its the same everywhere. if they get to read the books and study them, then they will realize that what is being done to them is not condoned by the religion, and then they will demand rights and justice. its exactly like medieval europe but at the same time, the exact opposite. in medieval europe, the priests and kings controlled the people by giving them religion - in india, they did the same thing, but by denying them the religion.

as for the brahmin issue - in the vedas, a person became a brahmin by following strict rules, dedicated their lives to god and mastered the scriptures. i would only let a brahmin officiate my wedding - but my definition of what a brahmin is follows the vedic definition, not the modern casteist definition.

Susheel

I am sorry but this is not true. Perhaps in a perfect, ideal utopia this is what Hinduism would or should be, but in reality Hindus do believe that gods exist, Krishna flocked in Dwarka and Rama was an incarnation of Vishnu who lived in Ayodhya. Trust me I was born and raised a Hindu. As for wars between 'good kingdoms and evil kingdoms'...a crash course on History:
The winning side writes the books.

No Historical evidence to support this. Mir Baqi built the masjid in 1528-29. An inscription on the masjid about the construction does not mention that it was built after destroying a temple. If this had been doen those who constructed it would have considered it a meritorious act and definitely mentioned it. The earliest mention of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage is in 1598 (no mention of the Jenmabhoomi). As late as 1759 there is still no mention of the actual Janmabhoomi, though Ayodhya is established as the seat of Ramas kingdom. In 1575 (atleast 50 years after the Babri Masjid construction) Tulsidas does not mention the Babri Masjid, or...hold your breath...Ayodhya.
Besides if for the Hindus all this symbols of holiness is merely metaphorical,Ram, or the temple, or evenn Ayodhya shouldn't matter.

The anti Sikh riots post assasination was against a religious community but wasn't motivated by religion. It was politically induced and some of the most respected Congress polticians were involved.

True, there wasn't a Hindu form of the religious Jihad. But this does not mean that Hindu kings were the perfect rulers. There were raids by Afghan war lords who were more interested in looting, but the first real Muslim kingdom was established in India after they were invited to do so as part of political intrigue. Go back to your history book...that is if it hasn't already been rewritten by the new Hindutva regime.
I couldn't understand that bit about women having to explain.

Hinduism does allow for caste hierarchies and that is why it came into being. It was a gradual process but it did come into being and the holy books seemed to allow for it. As for child marriage, it was the norm and therefore it wasn't mentioned as such. Rama and Sita were still in their early teens when they were married. Manu has some interesting things to say and allows for pedophilia.

I gather Roshan that you arre progressive in you attitude to Hinduism, but have a strange appreciation for the 'Hindutva' movement raging through the country. I for one believe that the Hinduism of the here and now is the Hinduism that exists and it isn't very pretty. Perhaps the books say something else...but those very books are being used to excuse the madness, superstition and bigotry of today. Okay remove the religios aspects of the 'philosophy' and retain the secular aspect. Perhaps this would be a good step towardss humanism.

Seeker196

Roshan mentioned the school which views Brahman as 'completely impersonal'.

How far do they go? Could they be considered 'materialists' in a sense, not believing in anything except the universe?

For the 'completely impersonal' school could one say brahman=physical reality?

roshan

I am sorry but this is not true. Perhaps in a perfect, ideal utopia this is what Hinduism would or should be, but in reality Hindus do believe that gods exist, Krishna flocked in Dwarka and Rama was an incarnation of Vishnu who lived in Ayodhya. Trust me I was born and raised a Hindu. As for wars between 'good kingdoms and evil kingdoms'...a crash course on History:

REPLY: this depends on the sect. go ask any advaita vedantin, or a radhasoami if these gods actually exist. most hindus are extemely ignorant about the teachings of their own religion, most think that hinduism just has one philosophy, and they havent gone deeper into the teachings of all the diff philosophies. but when you actually read deeper into the philosophies, you will find that a majority of them do not actually believe in the existence of these gods. as for ram and krishna, yes, it is believed that these are historical people. but to those who go deeper into hindu philosophy, there are many hindu saints who believe that these people werent gods - they just became deified later on.

As for wars between 'good kingdoms and evil kingdoms'...a crash course on History:
The winning side writes the books.

REPLY: exactly. the british won from the indians - then they took indian literature and interpreted it in whatever way they wanted, distorting the true meaning. if you actually studdy the vedas, you will find that south indian kingdoms are often described as being arya, while north indian kingdoms are often described as being dark or evil.

No Historical evidence to support this. Mir Baqi built the masjid in 1528-29. An inscription on the masjid about the construction does not mention that it was built after destroying a temple. If this had been doen those who constructed it would have considered it a meritorious act and definitely mentioned it. The earliest mention of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage is in 1598 (no mention of the Jenmabhoomi). As late as 1759 there is still no mention of the actual Janmabhoomi, though Ayodhya is established as the seat of Ramas kingdom. In 1575 (atleast 50 years after the Babri Masjid construction) Tulsidas does not mention the Babri Masjid, or...hold your breath...Ayodhya.
Besides if for the Hindus all this symbols of holiness is merely metaphorical,Ram, or the temple, or evenn Ayodhya shouldn't matter.

REPLY: tulsidas did mention ayodhya. and there is historical evidence. parts of a ruined temple were found incorporated into the masjid even before its demolition. also, when it was demolished, a stone incription was uncovered that said a 12th century hindu temple stood at the site. the royal family of jaipur has released an ancient map which marks the location of the babri masjid as ram janambhoomi. there is other evidence also.

The anti Sikh riots post assasination was against a religious community but wasn't motivated by religion. It was politically induced and some of the most respected Congress polticians were involved.

True, there wasn't a Hindu form of the religious Jihad. But this does not mean that Hindu kings were the perfect rulers. There were raids by Afghan war lords who were more interested in looting, but the first real Muslim kingdom was established in India after they were invited to do so as part of political intrigue. Go back to your history book...that is if it hasn't already been rewritten by the new Hindutva regime.
I couldn't understand that bit about women having to explain.

Hinduism does allow for caste hierarchies and that is why it came into being. It was a gradual process but it did come into being and the holy books seemed to allow for it. As for child marriage, it was the norm and therefore it wasn't mentioned as such. Rama and Sita were still in their early teens when they were married. Manu has some interesting things to say and allows for pedophilia.

I gather Roshan that you arre progressive in you attitude to Hinduism, but have a strange appreciation for the 'Hindutva' movement raging through the country. I for one believe that the Hinduism of the here and now is the Hinduism that exists and it isn't very pretty. Perhaps the books say something else...but those very books are being used to excuse the madness, superstition and bigotry of today. Okay remove the religios aspects of the 'philosophy' and retain the secular aspect. Perhaps this would be a good step towardss humanism.

REPLY: yes, i do know why the first muslim kingdom was established in india. but the fact is that even the most secular and tolerant of muslim kings like akbar erected pillars of hindu heads, and conducted massacres. babar writes in his autobiography that he destroyed temples and killed people in order to spread islam.

also, marriage in the early teens is not child marriage. theres a diff between a teenager and a child. teenagers are already sexually mature, while childen are not. ive read part of the manu samhita(first 3 chapters), and i didnt find anything about pedophilia in there. perhaps i should complete reading it.

as for the caste system, yes, it did come into being, and it is supported by some later scriptures(however, even in these later scriptures, there is no mention of untouchability, and religion is not restricted to the upper castes). and now it must be removed.

as for hindutva - i am firmly against it. i would really like to see the likes of advani and thackeray dead. they are IMO not leaders, but disgraces to india and to hinduism. their actions will only result in the breakup and the instability of india.

if i had things my way, i would change the education system of india, not by saffronizing it, but rather by indianizing it, because the current education in india pretty much teaches kids to dislike their country and to patronize the west. also, it is extremely unobjective - theories are taught as fact, and a lot of things about indias history are not taught and kept hidden. it also doesnt take into account new discoveries by indology, and new theories about ancient india. i would also close down all the hindu schools, christian schools and madrasas, as well as remove quotas based on social system and religion, as well as having a common civil code for people of all religions. and i would also change the law to allow the public to inspect official records, so that the corrupt politicians cant steal the countries money and then hide behind some red tape. and then i would ban political parties, because idiots like the conress and bjp keep exploiting the religious sentiments of the people, thus increasing religious bigotry and fascism. then i would ban proselytization, as it causes a lot of problems, especially in rural areas, and leads to desrespect and intolerance. but these are just dreams though - and im afraid that india is heading in the opposite direction.

roshan

they believe that brahman is a completely impersonal entity, just an Absolute Reality, and they consider brahman as the only thing that exists. the soul to them is part of brahman, and the world is just the product of illussion(maya) and ignorance. when one gets enlightened, he is no longer under the effects of maya, and is freed from the cycle of birth and rebirth.

but there is a materialist heterodox philosophy in india called Carvaka, they believe that anything that cannot be sensed does not exist(inclusing god, soul etc), and that one should enjoy life as much as possible and live only for pleasure, knowledge, wealth etc. these were probably some of the worlds first atheists and materialists.