BNS and Monty
In some southern parts of India, Diwali (or Deepavali as it is called) is celebrated commemorating a different avatar of Vishnu, Vamana.
Small hijack:
This thread is doomed; Hinduism is a huge mish-mash of lots of stories intersecting and contradicting each other.
This is an instance of what I am talking about. I have heard alteast two other versions. I am sure there are many more!! You cannot get your head around this religion. There is no one book or practice that is universal.
The more you discuss Hinduism the richer the stories get; it may be fun, but you will end up nowhere.
(But then, I have always thought religion has to be necessarily ambiguous)
In general, people can convert to Hinduism, but there are some communities which will not accept converts. And in general, Hinduism does not seek converts either. However, it has been traditional for sages or other learned persons to travel on what could best be described as a lecture circuit and give discourses on topics related to Hinduism (more on this in a later post).
Saraswati is the goddess of learning and Brahma (the Creator)'s wife. She is usually depicted with a veena, a four-string musical instrument. Once a year, growing up, we did a Saraswati puja (ritual) where we placed our text books in front of an idol of Saraswati to ask for her blessing with our studies.
I would like to do some more research on Santoshi Mata before giving you an answer.
As for the sacred texts, the usual view is that all knowledge was released into the fabric of the universe at its construction. From time to time, there are gifted individuals, or seers, who can discern this knowledge and translate it for the rest of us. Sanskrit is the usual language for these works, but some writings of importance are written in Pali.
Some communities also will accept non-Sanskrit versions of the texts as being authoritative. My community views the Tamil version of the Vedas as being equally authoritative with the Sanskrit version, for example.
The major works are:
The Vedas: This is supposed to be the authoritative basis for Hinduism. It consists of four books (Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva). It describes numerous gods, rituals for worship, layout of altars, spells, incantations, and medicinal treatments.
The Upanishads: These build on Vedic philosophy while laying the foundation for monotheism and the way to escape the cycle of rebirth.
The Puranas: These cover in detail stories about Vishnu and Shiva and serve to provide greater insight into the Vedas.
The Mahabharata: The great Hindu epic. The bulk of this is concerned with the epic war fought between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, two groups of kings. It contains the Baghavad Gita, which is Krisha’s lecture on the nature of Dharma.
The Ramayana: I described this in a previous post.
This site might serve as a good intro to Hinduism, and contains a complete listing of all works:
http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/religions/religions.htm
And now, for reincarnation. Hindus (most anyway) believe that you have an eternal soul which is constantly being reincarnated. The body is merely a physical vessel for the soul and is discarded at the end of a life, much in the way one discards clothes at the end of the day. The cycle (or wheel) of reincarnation is called samsara (reincarnation based on past actions). As the soul moves through its physical life, it creates Karma. This Karma determines whether or not one will be reborn, and the circumstances of your next life. In a simplistic sense, this means that if something good happens to you, it’s because of previous good actions, and if something bad happens, it’s because of previous bad actions. The soul may spend time in either heaven or hell before returning to Earth for its next reincarnation according to some schools of thought. This heaven/hell is similar to but not the same as the Christian heaven/hell in that it is not an eternal state of being.
By performing certain actions, such as rituals, study, meditation, yoga, etc., one can escape the cycle of rebirth/death.
I disagree with your characterization that there is a non-theistic streak to this in that Sankara, the proponent of advaitism, was decidedly theistic, and this philosophy seems to have arisen as a response to the non-theistic Buddhist philosophies.
Hmm. I’ve always viewed Dvaitism as a subset of Vishista-Advaitism, in that the relationship between the soul and God seems to be the same. Perhaps we can debate this further.
This was not my experience growing up. YMMV.
Interesting viewpoint. From where does this come?
Being an IT guy I have woked with a lot of guys from India. I became good friends with three of them at different times. And I always had a question I didn’t feel confortable asking them. There were four Indian Guys at my first company Three were great friends and alwayas hung out together. The fourth never hung out with them and hung out with me and my friends. I always wondered if it was kind of a caste thing but dismissed it as just the way things worked out, cause the group of three was very standoffish and basically rude.
Then basically the same thing happened at my next two jobs, One standoffish group of Indian guys and one guy who became friends with my group of friends. My friends were also much darker skinned than the groups, is that a common part of the caste recognition?
I’d use the term Dharma instead of Karma, but this is a better characterization.
I don’t see how. Some people may choose to follow only rituals, but considering how much the religion has been added to over the years, it’s hardly stagnating.
This is the path layed out in the Gita. However, since Sankara did not follow this path (or may be said to have followed it in reverse), I don’t think it’s an exclusive path.
Here’s another version of it:
http://www.aptemples.com/templedethist/tirupati.htm
I am curious, though. Perhaps this story is peculiar to South India. Which part of India are you from?
I’ve heard an anthropological explanation that by letting cows wander, people get free manure (to use as fuel), and that the reason for cows being sacred is economic.
Except in the KarniMata temple:
http://judypat.com/india/karnimata.htm
Last year, my mother found a possum in the garage. She called animal control, and when they came, they caught it. They then informed her they were going to kill it, as there was a possum infestation in the area. My mom cried for four days. I think you are making sweeping generalizations here.
I think most Hindus are aware of the symbolism, as the term linga is not unknown. However, it’s probably not discussed in polite company. At a few temples in India, there’s quite a bit of sexual imagery in the carvings.
Hinduism has an odd relationship with sexuality. In some ways, it seems to be treated rather blandly, as just another aspect of life. However, from a social standpoint, I’ve found that most Indians tend to be very conservative when it comes to issues of sexuality. It’s possible that this is because of the influence of Muslim and then British Victorian culture.
Although siva-linga usually refers to mound/base form, it has a more general usage in which it refers to a number of other forms (such as a stone with the appropriate markings).
I wonder if they were from different parts of the country. There are 16 major languages, and if you’re around people who are speaking a language you don’t understand, it gets boring.
I don’t want to confuse social issues with religious ones in this thread (although they invariably become conflated in Hinduism), however, with regards to skin color:
There is a common perception that the further North one goes in India, people are more fair-skinned. There is also another perception that people of higher castes tend to be more fair-skinned. However, in practice I’ve found that this is not necessarily true.
I’m off for the weekend. I’ll try to come back to this thread on Sunday.
It is indeed a matter of interpretation but the Upanishads (on which the Advaita philosophy draws liberally from) in many places speaks of Brahman in highly abstract ways to the point of placing It beyond all attributes. If one were to compare religions, one can see that other Gods are somewhat well-defined though non-physical. It is from this that some scholars believe that there exists a non-theistic (non-deistic?) streak to Advaita. Buddhism definitely helped further this thought but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the non-theistic streak.
There does seem to be a distinction. If Sankaracharya provides much of the impetus behind the Advaitic school of thought, Ramanuja is a key figure in espousing Vishishta-Advaitism and Madhavacharya is one of the key figures in Dvaitism. Followers have found a difference between the last two schools that merits separation. As I said earlier, though Dvaitism is somewhat clear in my mind, and at the highest level sounds fundamentally opposed to Advaitism, Vishishta-Advaitism has been difficult to grasp. I have tried reading some of Ramanuja’s treatises and arrived at the conclusion that it will require many many hours of dedicated thought (something I cannot afford now).
It is indeed a matter of interpretation but the Upanishads (on which the Advaita philosophy draws liberally from) in many places speaks of Brahman in highly abstract ways to the point of placing It beyond all attributes. If one were to compare religions, one can see that other Gods are somewhat well-defined though non-physical. It is from this that some scholars believe that there exists a non-theistic (non-deistic?) streak to Advaita. Buddhism definitely helped further this thought but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the non-theistic streak.
There does seem to be a distinction. If Sankaracharya provides much of the impetus behind the Advaitic school of thought, Ramanuja is a key figure in espousing Vishishta-Advaitism and Madhavacharya is one of the key figures in Dvaitism. Followers have found a difference between the last two schools that merits separation. As I said earlier, though Dvaitism is somewhat clear in my mind, and at the highest level sounds fundamentally opposed to Advaitism, Vishishta-Advaitism has been difficult to grasp. I have tried reading some of Ramanuja’s treatises and arrived at the conclusion that it will require many many hours of dedicated thought (something I cannot afford now).
Well, I did say, by and large, rats are not venerated and I stand by it. I am aware of the presence of a temple for rats but that is a freak statistic. Rats are also generally not killed within temples.
From what I have experienced, most Indians in their daily lives view rats as a pest and routinely buy traps and kill them. There is a point when survival precedes religion.
Thanks for all the information and the link, BrightNShiny. I appreciate it.
You may be confusing Hinduism with Jainism. Jains practice a philosophy of extreme non-violence called ahimsa which prohibits them from killing any living thing. IIRC, they often build “hospitals” for wounded animals including birds and rats. They don’t worship these animals but they believe that they are garnering good karma by caring for them.
I was responding to a post by BNS. I had pointed out (an apparent hypocrisy) that the rat which is Lord Ganesha’s animal consort is not venerated while the cow is (by virtue of the Nandi) but BNS said I might be making a sweeping generalization.
My apologies. I’m rather tired and I skimmed your post, saw something about a temple of rats and totally misconstrued your point. (I was also distracted by a three-year old climbing on my computer table.)
I’ve heard a people express a misconception that Hindus worship rats before and I just assumed that’s what you were talking about and posted an automatic response without bothering to read comprehensively or review the first page. Mea culpa. I’m guilty of not paying attention. Sorry. Carry on.
Jainism-I’m somewhat familiar with this faith(the kashrut is positively libertine in comparison. I’ve heard Jains explain that they eat no bread as living yeast is killed during baking), I’m not clear on if or how it is connected to Hinduism. Can you educate me on this?
Death customs- Like most people I’ve come across tales of suttee, burning ghats and such in books and films. Do any of the canon texts specify how a corpse should be disposed of?
The Simpsons- What particularly do you find offensive? IMO the show treats Hinduism the same way it does other faiths. Apu may have a stereotypical accent and run a convenience store. However, Reverend Lovejoy, Krusty, and Rabbi Krustovski also have stererotypical accents and behaviors.
Thanks for starting this thread, BrightNShiny.
The question regarding conversion to Hinduism is an interesting one to me. I was told by some that if one wished to follow Hinduism (some subset of practices, obviously), you had only to do it, with no conversion required. I was later told that there is actually one temple (I cannot remember the name, but I think it was in Orissa) where one could be formally “converted” provided the chief priest was satisfied that you a) knew what you were talking about, and b) were sincere in your wish.
The topic of conversion came up in relation to the more basic question of whether it was appropriate for a non-Hindu to enter an actively-used temple (i.e., not like most of the temples at Khajuraho). I was in India twice last year; on my first trip, I was told that many temples were increasingly less tolerant of non-Hindus making visits, and that I should never assume it would be okay for me to visit one. (It wouldn’t surprise me if this was in part a response to insensitive tourists, and though it’s regrettable I can certainly understand.) During my second trip, some Indian colleagues invited me to do pooja with them at the local temple. I mentioned that I hadn’t gone to that temple on my previous visit because of what I had been told before… they reassured me that it was all right as long as I was with them, and indeed there was no problem. In fact, I later attended aarti at the same temple, again with colleagues present (and it was a wonderful experience, I might add).
So, I’m wondering now - is it your experience also that non-Hindus are generally not supposed to enter an active temple, or is it a stance meant only to keep out the casual tourist? Also… say I’m your average European-looking individual, and I have made a personal commitment to live as a Hindu. How much trouble am I likely to have convincing a temple priest away from home that I want to visit a temple for worship, and not for sightseeing, especially if there is in fact no formal process for conversion?
In general, I am not aware of a process for converting to Hinduism. It is, of course, trivial to practise Hinduism or any religion for that matter, in the sense that it is a personal commitment.
There could be some sects which may have a process for conversion and I can even imagine some temples/sects initiating a process for monetary reasons (given that it has some interest outside India)