So, what’s the deal with that dot? I mean. can you see through it or does it change colour when you’re mad or something?
The “dot” is the bindi (also called a botu), and I’ve given my explanation above.
While that is the traditional grouping, it might be worth noting that the reality of the issue was that the number of castes ( or at least sub-castes ) tended to proliferate, arising and disappearing in different areas as regional social pressures changed. So with, for example, the Marathas:
*On the face of it, “Matatha” is a a different from the terms “Bengali” or “Tamil”. Everyone of long residence in a Bengal-speaking area and speaking Bengali is a Bengali. Similarly, there might be Tamil Brahmins or Tamil Christians, but they would all be Tamils. Not all Marathi-speaking residents of Maharastra are Marathas, not by any means. The caste, as we shall see, is similar to Rajasthan - where all Rajasthani-speaking residents are not Rajputs.
There is nothing, however, in this early evidence to indicate that the use of the term Maratha meant anything other than a resident of Maharashtra.
Over the next two hundred years, the term came to mean a new elite, the Maratrha chiefs who brought bands of followers to serve the Bahmani kingdom or those rebelling against it. The new meaning is well-established by the time of Ferishta’s history of the Deccan in 1600. The process seens to fit a well-established pattern for the creation of new caste categories that arise in response to new possibilities for upward economic mobility.
Looking backward from the ample material on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we know that “Maratha” as a category or a caste represents the amalgamation of families of several cates - Kunbi, Lohar, Sutar, Bhandari, Thakar, and even Dhangars ( shepherds ) - which existed in the seventeenth century and, indeed, exist as castes in Maharashtra today.*
From The New Cambridge History of India, vol II-4:* The Marathas, 1600-1800* by Stewart Gordon ( 1993, Cambridge University Press ).
Right. Though it is my understanding that on a regional basis, you can find certain Hindu groups that do eat beef as a normal part of their culture. It is a minority of the country to be sure, but perhaps not as rare as one might expect based on the common stereotype.
Again, not a contradiction to what you said, since you were discussing the issue from a general standpoint, but I find the nitpicky exceptions interesting ;).
- Tamerlane
Were you born into a Hindu family? Been Hindu all your life? I seems a very complicated religion (maybe just because I’m not terribly familiar with it) and I’ve never heard of many converts to it.
I’m still trying to figure out what that Brahma story means.
Tamerlane, this is very true about the caste system. In practice, there were an immense amount of subcastes, and depending on the part of the country, caste may have been more fluid at differing times.
Even in Manu’s book, he has to make great leaps of logic to fit every occupation into the traditional 4-caste heirarchy.
Of interest also is that different castes may speak different dialects of the language. I learnt Tamil from my parents and not formally, and some of my friends make fun of my Tamil as being too “brahminical.” I’m planning to learn the language formallly starting this fall.
As for the cows, there are also apparently Hindus who perform cow sacrifices on certain occasions. I’ve never witnessed this personally, though.
Please be nitpicky all you want. It’s a complex religion, and we’ll have to go from general to specific. And since the practice is very different from region to region, we’ll be stumbling over exceptions all the time.
I was born a Hindu (both my parents are Hindus), and I got dragged very much against my will to the temple when I was growing up. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve taken more interest in the religion.
It’s complexity in part stems from it’s very nature. Since Hinduism makes no claim to exclusive doctrine, and since prophets can appear at any time, the religion is constantly being added to.
The Brahma story carries several lessons. The first is about the control of one’s anger. I glossed over this part, because I didn’t want to write the entire thing in detail, but Brighu’s actions cause the loss of his spiritual power as well as numerous reprucussions to the universe in general. The second is a message about hubris and ill-treatment of guests. The gods were negligent in their responsibilites as hosts by refusing to entertain Brighu, and therefore suffered the consequences. The next is about how one should treat one’s wife. By not acknowledging his wife’s humiliation, Vishnu lost his power. The next is about the intrinsic bond that all of God’s creations share. Vishnu and the cow are bound to each other, just as we all are bound together.
Most stories are like this, conveying multiple messages, which are then reinforced in other stories.
I know, but Karma demands I make as many Simpsons references as possible.
Yes, and if you read the other thread, you know I’m likely to take exception to them.
For completeness sake, with regards to the sacred cow:
Animals which are used as vehicles by the gods are traditionally afforded sacred status by Hindus. Shiva rides Nandi, the Bull, so this is another reason cows are considered sacred. Some other vehicles are:
Vishnu - Garuda, the eagle
Durga - Tiger (I don’t know the name of the top of my head)
Indra - Avitra, the 4-tusked elephant
Ganesha - Rat
Karthik - Peacock
Saraswati - Swan
I was a guest at the Hindu temple on Diego Garcia for the celebration of Devali (feel free to correct my spelling; I first learned of it in Malaysia as Hari Devali {assuming I got that spelling correct, but feel free to correct that also}). I found the temple itself and the service to be beautiful. Far be it from me to do injustice by describing either; however, I would appreciate BrightNShiny’s description of a typical temple & a typical Devali service.
BTW, BrightNShiny: does your username have anything to do with Devali?
BrightNShiny, thank you so much for starting this thread! I find Hinduism fascinating and wonderful. However, for an outsider, it’s sometimes hard to follow everything one reads.
I have a few questions, if you don’t mind. From this thread, the impression I get is that a non-Hindu cannot become a Hindu. You either are already (born into it), or you are not, period. Is that correct? Or does the religion allow converts?
Additionally, can you tell me anything about the goddess Santoshi Mata? And Saraswati?
Also, could you recommend some good books on Hinduism, as well as a listing of the sacred texts?
One last question, if you don’t mind. Could you explain the belief in reincarnation in greater detail?
Thanks so much for your time!
Nitpicks?
There are actually three main schools of Vedantic philosophy. Dvaita, Advaita, and Vishishta-Advaita.
In Advaitism, we have to be careful with the word illusion. The world is not necessarily unreal and illusory (though that appears to be a valid semantical interpretation) The illusion is the belief that the soul and the world it lives in is distinct from God. Once the illusion is removed, one will realize that everything is One. This philosophy is monotheistic on the surface but has a non-theistic streak to it. The non-theism stems from the fact that God is described as “unknowable”, “indescribable” etc, i.e., God is infinite, has no attributes, and is everywhere! (IMHO this abstract monotheism is what has allowed for a pantheon of Gods as they are all essentially one and the same - at a practical level, Hinduism is strongly pantheistic).
Dvaita (or the preferred term Tattvavada) does speak of a distinct difference between the soul and the transcendental God. They consider it “arrogant” to assume that all of our souls are in fact God. On attaining salvation, the soul does not become One with the world and everything, but the soul recognizes the existence of Vishnu (the transcendental Being) and enjoys enlightenment while still living in the real world.
Vishishta-Advaitism has always been difficult for me to understand. A good summary would be that it believes that the souls and universe are intricately linked to God with God dominating the relationship but they are not necessarily one and the same. This branch stresses the devotional route to salvation more than knowledge and self-realization.
To reiterate what BNS said (you have a long username!), while all the Vedantic philosophies (IIRC, there are actually other schools of thought not as dominant as the Vedantic ones) are fundamentally monotheistic, Hinduism as is widely practised has a large pantheon of Gods (Saivism and Vaishnavism, for example, are two Hindu sects who differ based on importance ascribed to two different Gods!) and is a religion mired in Gods, rites, rituals, festivals, social norms, ethics… It has become more a “way of life” than a religion. It is also MHO that the fundamental philosophies of salvation are by and large relegated to the background.
How about an easier answer? * Brahma * is indeed the creator but is not venerated because his job is done. Vishnu and Shiva are the ones keeping everything going!
Since you explicitly welcome nitpicks/corrections, here goes…
Re: (2)
Scholars of Hinduism have espoused three main ways to salvation, i.e., realize God: Bhakti, Karma and Gnana. You mentioned rituals, meditation and yoga.
Rituals are part of the Bhakti route. One of the problems with Hinduism is its periodic degeneration into mindless recitation of hymns and performance of rituals. This numbs the spirit of enquiry and allows the religion to stagnate.
The Gita goes into great detail on Karma, the path wherein you perform your duties and actions without seeking rewards/specific gains.
Gnana is the path of knowledge. Meditation is one way to attain Gnana.
Re: (5)
It has been written in scriptures that there are 4 stages in a Man’s life which include the stage where he is married and performs “house-holder duties” and the stage (the last one) where he decides to seek God by giving up his material Life.
Addendum re: Vedantic philosophies:
It might be helpful to interpret the Dvaitic school of thought (Dualism) as akin to Judeo-Christian/Islamic philosophy. God (Brahman)is distinct from Man’s soul(Atman), and Man attains bliss and “lives” with God when he attains salvation.
AFAIK, cows are considered sacred because of Shiva’s ride being a bull. I have never heard the mythological story you wrote before! All Shiva idols in temples have the accompanying Nandi out in front. But, ISTM that a cow is a relatively easy animal to be revered. A quiet domesticated animal that supplies milk (important in Indian life), and mates regularly with the bulls, which were used for transportation (as oxen?). It seems to be a very convenient ecosystem for bucolic India where the majority lived (and continue to live).
And, that probably also explains the hypocrisy of selective veneration. Them pesky rats (Lord Ganesha’s animal consort) are killed without a thought.
I’d just like to say that Brahma should not be confused with Brahman which is the final, ultimate but unknowable GOD behind all the gods.
Diwali is the usual spelling I’ve seen. This is also called the Festival of Lights.
I’ve usually thought that this celebrates the return of Rama to Ayodhya. Rama was an incarnation of Vishnu who’s wife, Sita, was kidnapped by the demon Ravana and taken to Sri Lanka. Rama raised an army, built a land bridge (!) to Sri Lanka, defeated Ravana, and rescued Sita. This is depicted in the Hindu epic, the Ramayana.
However, apparently in some parts of India, it is used as a celebration for other things (I learn something new everyday):
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Festivals/Diwali.html
Basically, like the name implies, there are lights everywhere. While specific customs may differ throughout the country, what I’ve seen is a chariot procession through the city which winds up at the temple where rituals are performed.
Temples are built according to very specific rules. The idols also are usually constructed to certain specifications. Interestingly, my experience has been that North Indian temples tend to have idols made of white stone or marble, while South Indian temples tend to have idols made of black stone. Temples usually have intricate artwork on the outside which depict different deities.
This site has pictures of several temples:
http://www.aptemples.com/servlet/aptemples.templeslist?next=0
Most Hindu festivals, I think, serve a communal aspect, bringing people together to celebrate.
My user name is a rather unfortunate choice. I happened to be watching the movie “Bubble Boy” when I registered.
The shivalinga is actually a phallic symbol (“linga” is Sanskrit for “penis.”) conjoined with a circular base representing a female “yoni.”
I was told by an Eastern Religion professor that many Hindus now are not even aware of the sexual symbolism inherent in the Shivalinga, even to the point of denying it if pointed out to them.
Is this true? Do Hindus recognize it as a phallic symbol anymore or has the Shivalinga simply become a more abstract representation of Shiva?
Thank you, BrightNShiny. Out of the four religious buildings on the island (the base chapel, the contract company’s chapel (Roman Catholic), the Iglesia ni Cristo chapel, and the Hindu temple), the Hindu temple and the Iglesia ni Cristo chapels vied for both most beautiful and most well-maintained.
As I said, I first encountered the “Festival of Lights” in Malaysia, wo was introduced to the bahasa Malaysia name (which I might’ve misspelled).