Is Hinduism a religion

[Gaura Priya]

And of course, in every religion, all of God's names are powerful and salvific:


"My dear King, although Kali-yuga is an ocean of faults, there is still one good quality about this age: Simply by chanting the name of Krishna [the Hare Krishna maha-mantra], one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom."

-- Srimad-Bhagavatam 12.3.51 (Vaishnavism)


"And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Yehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Yehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Yehovah is calling."

-- Joel 2:23 (Judaism, Karaite)


" 'And in the last days,' God says, 'I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams... And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and smoke mist; the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and illustrious day of Jehovah arrives. And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.'"

-- Acts 2:17-21 (Christianity)


"Whether you call Him Allah or call Him Rahman [the Compassionate One]; it is all the same by whichever name you call Him because for Him are all the Finest names."

-- Qur'an 17:110 (Islam)


"Whoever hath been transported by the rapture born of adoration for My Name [Abhá], the Most Compassionate, will recite the verses of God in such wise as to captivate the hearts of those yet wrapped in slumber. Well is it with him who hath quaffed the Mystic Wine of everlasting life from the utterance of his merciful Lord in My Name—a Name through which every lofty and majestic mountain hath been reduced to dust."

-- Kitab-i-Aqdas, 150 (Baha'i Faith)

 

[Jainarayan]

Because devotees of the Abrahamic religions who go deeper do not see that God as a smiting, sadistic dude. They look into the allegorical, and see deeper meanings behind the stories. Sometimes the explanations given come really close to our Vedic understanding.

I've had a lot of very good conversations with the Jews on this forum and am impressed with their knowledge and understanding and can draw many similarities between my understanding and theirs.

OK, I see your point now. Ironically that is how I tended to view God as a former Christian, but I was outside the mainstream, even of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even when passages were quoted that you and Gaura Priya provided, they were only given lip service by clergy and teachers. They were never "taught" on that deeper level, only quoted.

Thanks.

 

[TTCUSM]

Does the Quran talk about rebirth?
Does the Quran talk about an eternal soul without a beginning?
Does the Quran accept Krishna as an avatar or the Supreme being?
Does the Quran talk about varnashrama Dharma?
Does the Quran take a position on Jnana Yoga?

Without any of this, if one still sees the Quran and the BG as the same, then I would say that person will see any two scriptures as the same - regardless of their content. So it is not really the case that scripture A <=> Scripture B, but that the person has a preconceived notion that they must all be the same or else the tough question of "who is correct?" needs to be addressed. By taking the position that they are all the same, this question is dismissed.

Kaisersose,

You might be interested in this article by Dr. Frank Morales. In this article, he criticizes the doctrine of "Radical Universalism", which states that "all religions are the same". According to Dr. Morales, this doctrine was not part of traditional Hinduism, and was incorporated into the religion by reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Kaisersose,

You might be interested in this article by Dr. Frank Morales. In this article, he criticizes the doctrine of "Radical Universalism", which states that "all religions are the same". According to Dr. Morales, this doctrine was not part of traditional Hinduism, and was incorporated into the religion by reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

Ramakrishna never said all religions are the same. That statement would have been of coarse be absurd. Dr Morales wrote an article for Hinduism today that I feel was very successfully rebuffed in later issues of Hinduism today by a few letters to editor and an article. I feel Morales used a straw man approach to his argument. The teachings of Ramakrishna and many other saints were much closer to what you find in Aldous Huxley perennial philosophy which is much more reasonable then Universalism.

According to Huxley, the perennial philosophy is:
the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being; the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the perennial philosophy may be found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions
(The Perennial Philosophy, p. vii).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy



That is not to say that Universalism is not believed by some Hindu's.

 

[atanu]

This was discussed much acrimoniously earlier in another forum.

Dr. Morales has not only found fault with Ramakrishna but practically every teacher of repute. Just try to discuss things with Morales in his forum called Dharma Central and one will find how open he is to discussion. He will ban you in an hour.

Ramakrishna has never said that all religions are same. We know about samanya (general) and vishesha (particular). Not only Ramakrishna but all Indian teachers, including Veda, teaches that the differences are in the vishesha. As one goes deeper and deeper, the samanya reveals more and more sameness. And that exactly is Brahman -- the highest general truth that runs through all visheshas - particulars.

(Though all forms are different but the Brahman running through all forms is the Deity Seer. Although the names are infinite, the samanya-Brahman running through them is the Deity Vak. And so on. Yoga is about abiding in samanya.)

 

[kaisersose]

Ambedkar was also a Buddhist, was he not?

I am a Vaishnava, and I do not believe in the caste system... many Hindus, especially in the Western world, have let go of this caste system, because there is no evidence of a hereditary caste system in 'Hinduism.'

What kind of evidence are you looking for? It is the *only* system in existence.

The so-called 'untouchable' caste is a joke to me; there is no shastric evidence to support that any human being is considered an 'untouchable' by virtue of birth.

If not by birth, what else would be the criteria per your understanding?

 

[Gaura Priya]

What kind of evidence are you looking for? It is the *only* system in existence.

If not by birth, what else would be the criteria per your understanding?

By qualities, by one's inclinations or tendencies.

Varnashrama system was never passed down as a birthright. The qualities are inherent, but they are not hereditary.

Just because my father is a vaishya, or has inclinations of a vaishya, does not necessarily mean that I myself am a vaishya. I could as very well be a shudra, or a kshatriya, or a brahmana.

 

[kaisersose]

By qualities, by one's inclinations or tendencies.

There is no evidence for that. The system has always been by birth. More on this below.

Varnashrama system was never passed down as a birthright. The qualities are inherent, but they are not hereditary.

Not true. It is by birth and no other criteria. All the Pandavas were Kshatriyas because they were born in a Kshatriya family. Arjuna's Dharma was Kshatriya Dharma, even when he was reluctant to fight. Drona, though a warrior, was always called a Brahmana (which was by birth) and was never called a Kshatriya. Also Parashurama, etc.

Just because my father is a vaishya, or has inclinations of a vaishya, does not necessarily mean that I myself am a vaishya. I could as very well be a shudra, or a kshatriya, or a brahmana.

1. It is not an exact science. The odds are the Vaishya's son will be a Vaishya, partly due to his genes and partly due to his circumstances of growing up among Vaishyas. In other words, as the Gita describes each person should strive to uphold his Dharma and comply with the list of characterestics of each Varna Dharma. The person born in the Brahmana family and raised among Brahmanas is in the best possible position to cultivate the Brahmana Dharma. Also, the Brahmana needs to have a Gotra (ancestry) and Pravara and a "converted" Brahmana cannot acquire them. Ergo, he is not really a Brahmana.

2. If Varna is not to be determined by birth, then it is impossible to determine varna, as there can be no other criteria. Prabhupada attempted this with disastrous results. He considered himself qualified to break tradition and to be able to identify a person's Varna by his external characterestics. He hand picked the Gurus who would lead Iskcon after his time, who eventually turned out to be pedophiles bringing Iskcon down to its knees. It just does not work that way.

3. In a global world, Gurus who seek a Western audience need to put a new spin to this story because they will not get far if they tell their followers that they are Mlechchas and not up to the level of Brahmanas. Therefore, we see this new age confusion coming up with people self-evaluating their varnas or their Gurus doing it for them.

4. The Varna system is outdated. The types of occupations and tendencies of today are far different from the time when this primitive system was created. It is quite absurd that we are trying to apply outdated concepts to our times and confusing ourselves in the process.

 

[nameless]

There is no evidence for that. The system has always been by birth.

O Arjuna! I have created the fourfold orders according to the modes of action and the modes of their nature. And although I am the creator, you know me yet as a non doer and eternal.

Bhagavat Gita 4:13

It is by birth and no other criteria. All the Pandavas were Kshatriyas because they were born in a Kshatriya family. Arjuna's Dharma was Kshatriya Dharma, even when he was reluctant to fight. Drona, though a warrior, was always called a Brahmana (which was by birth) and was never called a Kshatriya. Also Parashurama, etc.

how can you say they practiced it in right manner? and where it is said in the vedas to adopt those old lifestyles? this explanation is not valid at all. You should quote some texts to prove it.

1. It is not an exact science. The odds are the Vaishya's son will be a Vaishya, partly due to his genes and partly due to his circumstances of growing up among Vaishyas.

true, circumstances plays a role in shaping ones interest, but it does not mean varna is decided by birth. And vaishya dharma is not inferior to brahamana dharma as all dharmas is essential in a society.

The person born in the Brahmana family and raised among Brahmanas is in the best possible position to cultivate the Brahmana Dharma.

the circumstances would be helpful, but not necessarily he become a brahmin.

Also, the Brahmana needs to have a Gotra (ancestry) and Pravara and a "converted" Brahmana cannot acquire them. Ergo, he is not really a Brahmana.

as everyone would not become brahmin, there is no importance in ancestry.

 

[atanu]

There is no evidence for that. The system has always been by birth. More on this below.

Not true. It is by birth and no other criteria. ---

1. It is not an exact science. The odds are the Vaishya's son will be a Vaishya, partly due to his genes and partly due to his circumstances of growing up among Vaishyas. ----
2. If Varna is not to be determined by birth, then it is impossible to determine varna, ----
3. In a global world, Gurus who seek a Western audience need to put a new spin to this story because they will not get far if they tell their followers that they are Mlechchas and not up to the level of Brahmanas. ---

Hello

I more or less agree to the above. Adding that the cycle is guna-karma-varna-kula.

None of these exist in isolation. It is chain of cause and effect. Shri Krishna says that He ensures an appropriate kula for birth based on one's guna-karma. To accept varna-guna-karma but not to accept that varna-guna-karma constitutes the link to one's future placement in a kula, is IMO, not agreeing to full of Hinduism.

But. Purusha Sukta says that Purusha itself is the four varnas. And it is the body of the Purusha. The head is Brahmana, arms the Kshatriya, thighs the vaishya and feet the Shudra. First, as all varnas constitute the Purusha, hatred based on varna is not as per teaching of dharma but is individual's problem. Second, there are innumerable evidences that caste by birth was over-ruled in many cases. Third, in a single man exists all the four varnas.

It is true that birth gives an indication of inclination and a clue as to what should be taught to an individual born in a particular kula. But, developments contrary to indications are well documented in scripture. And in those cases, even casteless were accepted as Brahmana.

4. The Varna system is outdated. The types of occupations and tendencies of today are far different from the time when this primitive system was created. It is quite absurd that we are trying to apply outdated concepts to our times and confusing ourselves in the process.

Can you elucidate this? What you mean by varna? Further, it appears that you are not happy with teachers who have tried to adapt varna to the new world and yet yourself prescribe changes in a fundamental understanding?

 

[A-ManESL]

I wrote an article on the virtues of the caste system some time back. Just want to share the link here.

Regards

 

[kaisersose]

Bhagavat Gita 4:13

Does not contradict the prevailing system of Varna by birth. Please see my explanations above for why an individual born in a Brahmana family is best suited to be a Brahmana and how if that is not the case, it becomes impossible to determine Varna, making the classification pointless.

how can you say they practiced it in right manner? and where it is said in the vedas to adopt those old lifestyles? this explanation is not valid at all. You should quote some texts to prove it.

Actually, I do not have to prove anything. The system determines Varna by birth alone and this is how it has been for thousands of years. This is no secret, though non Indian Westerners may have been led to believe this is not the case. If someone disagrees with the mainstream, prevailing norm, then the burden of proof is on them.

true, circumstances plays a role in shaping ones interest, but it does not mean varna is decided by birth.

As explained earlier, there is no other way to determine Varna. It is either by birth or nothing. I cannot decide my varna based on self-evaluation nor can someone else do it for me, no matter how famous a Guru he is.

the circumstances would be helpful, but not necessarily he become a brahmin.

His birth has made him a Brahmana. It is now his duty to adhere to Brahmana Dharma as laid out in the scripture.

 

[kaisersose]

Second, there are innumerable evidences that caste by birth was over-ruled in many cases.

Do you have examples? Let us leave out Vishwamitra, an exceptional case where he underwent extraordinary penance for the cross over. These are not good examples.

Third, in a single man exists all the four varnas.

That renders the system pointless.

It is true that birth gives an indication of inclination and a clue as to what should be taught to an individual born in a particular kula. But, developments contrary to indications are well documented in scripture. And in those cases, even casteless were accepted as Brahmana.

Please provide examples.A rare isolated incident is an exception and cannot serve as an example.

Can you elucidate this? What you mean by varna? Further, it appears that you are not happy with teachers who have tried to adapt varna to the new world and yet yourself prescribe changes in a fundamental understanding?

Let me ask you this. What is the relevance of Varna in today's world in both cases -

1. A religiously inclined person
2. A common man, though not an atheist, is not excessively focused on religion

I would like to hear from you the usefulness or importance of introducing the varna concept into their lives. I ask this because I see absolutely no benefit to it.

Thanks

 

[atanu]

Do you have examples? Let us leave out Vishwamitra, an exceptional case where he underwent extraordinary penance for the cross over. These are not good examples.

Please provide examples.A rare isolated incident is an exception and cannot serve as an example

According to Gandhi, "Among the saints of revered memory, Sena was a barber, Sajana was a butcher, Gora a potter, Raidas a cobbler, Chokhamala an untouchable, Tukaram a kumbi and so on. None disclaimed his hereditary function but worked his salvation through detached prayerful performance of it." [The Gospel of Selfless Action]

Examples of SatyakAma and Vidura come to mind immediately from scriptures. . Swami Vivekananda in modern India.There are others

That renders the system pointless.

Does not different parts of human body carry out different functions? The universe is stratification itself. The world will always have varNa, whether you like it or not

Let me ask you this. What is the relevance of Varna in today's world in both cases -

1. A religiously inclined person
2. A common man, though not an atheist, is not excessively focused on religion

I would like to hear from you the usefulness or importance of introducing the varna concept into their lives. I ask this because I see absolutely no benefit to it.

Thanks

That will depend on what you understand varna to be.

Definitions
jAti birth , production, fixed by birth ; position assigned by birth , rank , caste , family , race , lineage etc.

varNa a covering , cloak , mantle ; a cover , lid ; outward appearance , exterior , form , figure , shape , colour

There is definite difference between varNa and jAti; the former being the cause and the latter being the result. Again, varNa depends on karma in a particular station (jAti). But good karma does not lead to accumulation of guna-varna in the conventional sense of accumulation of wealth. Actually the rajasic-tamasic gunas dwindle. And the veil that is varNa becomes more and more transparent, finally letting the Atman shine as it is.

The SatyakAma story from Upanishad shows that although normally varNa is linked with birth, but whenever a proof of good intention and good character is available, varNa considerations are transcended. It only shows that the system is not rigid. The truth of any issue is more important.

varNa and jAti have two different meanings. But varNa, which is actually a spiritual concept has to have manifestation in waking universe. This way the spiritual varNa and manifested being is linked. The very fact that upanishads talk of purification through karma, through studies etc. indicate that varNa is not a fixed thing for an individual jiva, though the four classes are eternal.

We believe that the fruit of all activity, including the future birth, is decided by karma in the present birth. And Shri Krishna directly says that He is the origin/creator of these four fold divisions. It is unreasonable to assume that the fourfold divisions will not take equivalent manifestation in world.


It is not unreasonable to say the followings:

• varNa has link to various parts/functionalities of Purusha' body. varNa of a jiva can very well decide as to what kind of voaction/rites will be most suitable.
• Since there is no manifest indication of one's varna, the ordained system is one of usefulness and not for exploitation .
• However there are numerous examples that this linkage between varNa and jAti was not meant to be rigid. The Satyakama story and several other are proofs.
• It is also probable that exploitation of the system took place and takes place. But which soceity is free of exploitation of have nots by the haves?
• It may also be true that for kali yuga some modifications/lessening of rigidity is required. Yet, the four varNna classes, will remain and the image of the four varNa classes in four corresponding social divisions will remain.

If varNa is not reflected in jAti, then why should Shri Krishna talk about fourfold divisions of varNa? And who then knows about it, if there is no linkage to the visible world? The only direct linkage could be the birth, since that is controlled by Ishwara, as per Hindu belief.

 

[Onkara]

So what about people born without a clear varNa? E.g. people born in the USA or Europe.
Or Sikhs, a Singh or Kaur returning to Hinduism without knowing their varNa?
What about orphans e.g. a baby in India found abandoned in front of a mandir with no markings?

 

[Jainarayan]

So what about people born without a clear varNa? E.g. people born in the USA or Europe.
Or Sikhs, a Singh or Kaur returning to Hinduism without knowing their varNa?
What about orphans e.g. a baby in India found abandoned in front of a mandir with no markings?

^ This.

I think caste and varna come under the heading of Cultural Practice, and can't be applied outside the culture that gave birth to the practices.

I'm a white American of Italian lower class descent (laborers, seamstresses, etc.), but I work in IT, an otherwise whte collar industry. What am I?

 

[Onkara]

^ This.
What am I?

A general question... could such questions be answered by consulting Ajoyti - Vedic Astrology? Anyone know?

 

[Jainarayan]

Maybe I'll pose the question "over there".

 

[Onkara]

Maybe I'll pose the question "over there".

I think sometimes forums cause a kind of internet blindenss where I ask questions without looking else where first . I just searched for it and here is a link with some info (not sure of its validity):

VEDIC ASTROLOGY: VARNA

1) BRAHMIN VARNA : Person whose Birth Rashi is Cancer or Scorpio or Pisces is considered Brahmin by Varna in Hindu Vedic Astrology .

2) KSHATRIYA VARNA : Person whose Birth Rashi is Aries or Leo or Sagittarius is considered Kshatriya by Varna in Hindu Vedic Astrology.

3) VAISHYA VARNA: Person whose Birth Rashi is Taurus or Virgo or Capricorn is considered Vaishya by Varna in Hindu Vedic Astrology.

4) SHUDRA VARNA : Person whose Birth Rashi is Gemini or Libra or Aquarius is considered Shudra by Varna in Hindu Vedic Astrology.

 

[Jainarayan]

Seems simple enough. By this I'm Brahmin (Cancer), my mother (Libra) and father (Gemini) were Shudra.