Practical Hinduism?

[vistascan]

Hello.

In a book named Hindu Ethics : Purity, abortion and euthanasia, I came across this passage.

There are two widespread pictures of Hindu society in the West. One is of the yogi performing great feats of physical and mental gymnastics, wandering through the world with his begging bowl or sitting motionless in the forest, deep in meditation. The other picture is of the Brahmin priest-scholar at the top of a vast hierarchy of hereditary communities that do not intermarry or even eat together outside the caste. The first picture is supported by the Indian philosophies elaborating various paths that renounce the world and lead to eternal salvation. The second picture has its scriptural support in a different set of sacred texts, the "law books" (Dharmasastras*).

As one sided as this text sounds, I can see that it is easy to come to this conclusion. The Upanishads and commentaries, which are the first places one goes to to know about Hinduism constantly talk about how desires bind one to samsara, how one must give up stuff etc.

The mimansa school, which does not pay heed to moksa, instead goes on about Vedic rituals, preferring to talk in detail about how rituals are to be done, but nothing secular is talked about.

We see some basic ethics in the Yoga sutras, (Yama and niyama), but these again are steps on the road to liberation.

In the Dharma shashtras and Dharma sutras, we see ritual penances, casteism, misogyny, and how Brahmins are superior, but again nothing secular.

Another book, named Dharma Sutras, says that unless specified, all injunctions in the Dharma sutras are for Brahmins only, and nearly all are this way. Thus again we see a lack of secular and practical ideas.

In contrast, on the Abrahamic Judaism side, the Rabbis are most likely to give out practical advice for the common man. Books such as Pirkei Avot and Mesillas Yesharim are no nonsense guides to living, which nonetheless depend on the Torah.

So, I have to ask, how far do you think this characterisation of Hinduism is justified? Do you know of sources of ethics or daily living for the common man?

Thanks

 

[Vinayaka]

The two ideas proposed here probably make up less that 10% of what Hinduism is, in all practical terms. The yogis in total number may be million souls, out of maybe 700 million. Pretty insignificant. The 'scholars' number a few more, and the Brahmins a few more, maybe 10%, but that would be a stretch. Not sure where you got these ideas from, but Hinduism is a lot more than this. Most people are neither scholars or yogis.

Daily ethics is something that remains largely an oral teaching passed on within families from parents to children. The Tirukkural and maybe parts of the Gita (I don't know the Gita at all, just a guess) also deal with ethics. You might find a few modern books. One example is Subramuniyaswami's 'Living with Siva' which deals with all you mentioned and more.

 

[bp789]

The two ideas proposed here probably make up less that 10% of what Hinduism is, in all practical terms. The yogis in total number may be million souls, out of maybe 700 million. Pretty insignificant. The 'scholars' number a few more, and the Brahmins a few more, maybe 10%, but that would be a stretch. Not sure where you got these ideas from, but Hinduism is a lot more than this. Most people are neither scholars or yogis.

I think that was the point he was trying to make, that some shastras talk about the things to do to attain moksha or what rituals to follow, but those rules seem to be for people trying to attain moksha or Brahmins. However, the average Hindu is most likely just trying to live their life the best they can, and the majority of Hindus are not Brahmins, so the many shastras which list out guidelines to follow don't apply to them because they're not trying to attain liberation or they're not Brahmins. I think that's what he was trying to say, but I might be wrong.

Daily ethics is something that remains largely an oral teaching passed on within families from parents to children. The Tirukkural and maybe parts of the Gita (I don't know the Gita at all, just a guess) also deal with ethics. You might find a few modern books. One example is Subramuniyaswami's 'Living with Siva' which deals with all you mentioned and more.

Tirukkural is virtually unheard of among North Indians. There aren't that many that know of it or give it great importance. In my view, the Bhagavad Gita doesn't really talk about ethics, but philosophy. It talks about how one should not be attached to the fruits of our actions, and we should perform our actions keeping God in mind, along with other stuff about karma, bhakti, and jnana yoga. There really isn't much about ethics in there, at least when I last read it.

For Swaminarayan Hindus, most of our behavior is based on the "Shikshapatri", which is a sectarian scripture, so the majority of Hindus know nothing about it. Some of the rules aren't followed among followers in the US, particularly social rules such as caste which are heavily relaxed, but stuff like no meat, no alcohol, don't kill, no abortions, don't ruin natural places, etc is followed. It also divides what rules men should follow, women, sadhus, or kings. The rules for Swaminarayan laymen seem to be way more strict though than how a lot of Hindus seem to live their lives, even among the sect itself. I have no idea about other Hindus though. For the most part, it seems to just be based off word of mouth. There don't seem to be any other Hindu scriptures that lay out specific ethical rules for Hindus to live by, but I don't that many Hindu scriptures, so there might be some that deal with ethics.

 

[Vinayaka]

Now I'm finding this interesting, because most Hindus I know do have ethics, and fairly strong at that. I'll have to chat about it with a few. But my guess it is indeed word of mouth... parent to parent to parent ... that and role-modelling, which has an incredibly high effect, more than most people realise. I had ethics before Hinduism came along, and certainly it wasn't from books. But my father, an atheist, had a huge impact on me in that way.

 

[Maya3]

The way I see it is that our ethics comes from the importance of Ahimsa (non harming).
Most Hindus are very aware of what this means and that it means that you should treat the whole creation with respect.

But rules for what you must do and what is "proper" isn't that important in my view. Hindus seem more easy going than that and don't get "hung up" on different rules as some in Abrahamic religions seem to do.

Maya

 

[vistascan]

I think that was the point he was trying to make, that some shastras talk about the things to do to attain moksha or what rituals to follow, but those rules seem to be for people trying to attain moksha or Brahmins. However, the average Hindu is most likely just trying to live their life the best they can, and the majority of Hindus are not Brahmins, so the many shastras which list out guidelines to follow don't apply to them because they're not trying to attain liberation or they're not Brahmins. I think that's what he was trying to say, but I might be wrong.

Exactly my point. I have been reading on Hinduism for three years, but I have seen nothing that addresses the common man. I am aware of Thirukkural, but as you point out, it is sadly, not known in North India. There is not much I have seen that talks about the householders, which is a strange contrast with the other oldest religion, Judaism, which places a lot of emphasis on practical living.

 

[Ashoka]

I think that was the point he was trying to make, that some shastras talk about the things to do to attain moksha or what rituals to follow, but those rules seem to be for people trying to attain moksha or Brahmins. However, the average Hindu is most likely just trying to live their life the best they can, and the majority of Hindus are not Brahmins, so the many shastras which list out guidelines to follow don't apply to them because they're not trying to attain liberation or they're not Brahmins. I think that's what he was trying to say, but I might be wrong.

Shaivism is a householder sect for the common person. Especially Kashmir Shaivism.

 

[vistascan]

Shaivism is a householder sect for the common person. Especially Kashmir Shaivism.

I am aware of that. But are there any basic "ethical living" texts? The works of Abhinavagupta et al are not certainly for the common man

 

[Vinayaka]

This is a major problem in the transference of knowledge, whether it is to the west, or in India itself. If ethics are forgotten about, or ignored, then further steps, like dhyana, will be fruitless. How can a person possibly meditate successfully if something like being dishonest, or worse, promiscuity or substance abuse thoughtforms are hanging around like some dark cloud?

Some western meditation teachers have skipped all this entirely. I think, back in India in a different generation, one could assume correctly that ethics were followed. Now it's not the same. I remember reading once how Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was shocked to discover that the Beatles and some of the other westerners who went to India were doing acid, smoking up, and sleeping around a lot. So in some cases, he had to disconnect the teachings from that.

In Patanjali's Yoga sutras, Yamas is first, and that's why. Other stages are nigh impossible unless a mind is settled in an ethical way. Unfortunately, the yamas can be considered 'boring' by some, so they jump ahead, go all out for awhile, get few fruits, and then wonder why. A healthy tree has great roots.

 

[vistascan]

This is a major problem in the transference of knowledge, whether it is to the west, or in India itself. If ethics are forgotten about, or ignored, then further steps, like dhyana, will be fruitless. How can a person possibly meditate successfully if something like being dishonest, or worse, promiscuity or substance abuse thoughtforms are hanging around like some dark cloud?

Some western meditation teachers have skipped all this entirely. I think, back in India in a different generation, one could assume correctly that ethics were followed. Now it's not the same. I remember reading once how Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was shocked to discover that the Beatles and some of the other westerners who went to India were doing acid, smoking up, and sleeping around a lot. So in some cases, he had to disconnect the teachings from that.

In Patanjali's Yoga sutras, Yamas is first, and that's why. Other stages are nigh impossible unless a mind is settled in an ethical way. Unfortunately, the yamas can be considered 'boring' by some, so they jump ahead, go all out for awhile, get few fruits, and then wonder why. A healthy tree has great roots.

And this is a problem, I think. Even yama and niyama are not an end, but a means to samadhi, moksa etc. This lack of purely ethical texts for the common man, whether real or perceived, is a cause of the "everything goes" attitude to many Westerners and even many Indians on Hinduism

 

[Vinayaka]

Unfortunately even some of the 'teachers' themselves don't follow an ethical conduct. But what is the solution? I know personally, whenever I am forced into giving introductory talks, I mention ethics as essential. One can hardly go around 'preaching'.

 

[Sumit]

I have been reading on Hinduism for three years, but I have seen nothing that addresses the common man.

Strange.
4 vedas address the comman men, 6 darshans and upvedas address common man, Upanishads address common men, gita is for common man. And all the rituals that are addressed for Brahmins are for common man but that very common man should act as Brahmin (originally brahmin is not a caste but a varna). Other than these there are many other books in Hinduism that addresses common man. It's strange if you didn't find them in 3 years.

 

[vistascan]

Strange.
4 vedas address the comman men, 6 darshans and upvedas address common man, Upanishads address common men, gita is for common man. And all the rituals that are addressed for Brahmins are for common man but that very common man should act as Brahmin (originally brahmin is not a caste but a varna). Other than these there are many other books in Hinduism that addresses common man. It's strange if you didn't find them in 3 years.

The Vedas are definitely not for the common man. One needs a long period of learning to get the Vedas. Later on, women and Sudras were not allowed to learn the Vedas. The Samhitas deal only with rituals and the Upanishads with moksa. How many common men are geared for moksa?

The Gita proposes ideals that are for the yogi, seeker of liberation. Sri Krishna mentions this repeatedly.

 

[Sumit]

The Vedas are definitely not for the common man. One needs a long period of learning to get the Vedas.

No gain without pain.

Later on, women and Sudras were not allowed to learn the Vedas.

So why don't you read the history of India. Definitely if a country is living under slavery it's culture will be destroyed. If Vedas were not for women than why Vedas contain names of women rishis??

The Samhitas deal only with rituals

You made a bold claim. So are you a vedic scholar??

How many common men are geared for moksa?

How many common man try for mokesh?? Not even 0.00000001%. So how can they except mokesh??

The Gita proposes ideals that are for the yogi, seeker of liberation. Sri Krishna mentions this repeatedly.

And who are those seeker or yogi. Those very common men.

 

[Maya3]

And this is a problem, I think. Even yama and niyama are not an end, but a means to samadhi, moksa etc. This lack of purely ethical texts for the common man, whether real or perceived, is a cause of the "everything goes" attitude to many Westerners and even many Indians on Hinduism

I don't think it's an "everything goes thing" well maybe if it's ok to use drugs.
But I think it is a much saner look at spirituality and religion if it comes from a natural wish to practice it instead of a rule book where you are scared of doing something wrong.

Maya

 

[Onkara]

The Vedas are definitely not for the common man. One needs a long period of learning to get the Vedas. Later on, women and Sudras were not allowed to learn the Vedas. The Samhitas deal only with rituals and the Upanishads with moksa. How many common men are geared for moksa?

The Gita proposes ideals that are for the yogi, seeker of liberation. Sri Krishna mentions this repeatedly.

Namste
What is a a "common man"?
My experience is that Hinduism appeals to individuals and it is the diversity of individuals all interested in Hinduism which may give an impression of "everything goes" as they begin to study and practice at different points.

The diversity of Individuals shall find that it too has always been a part of a whole...

Sri Krishna does speak of yoga, but he doesn't limit the applicant, in my view.

 

[vistascan]

No gain without pain.

But does not address my original point, which is that there is a supposed lack of texts pertaining to the common man and his life.

So why don't you read the history of India. Definitely if a country is living under slavery it's culture will be destroyed. If Vedas were not for women than why Vedas contain names of women rishis??

Doesn't change the fact that women ans shudras were banned from Vedic studies. One can't simply blame an external force and be done with it. Protests started within Hinduism itself, like the Veerashaivas and the Kashmir shaivas etc

You made a bold claim. So are you a vedic scholar??

The mimansaks are pretty much the final word on the Samhita portion. They accept that the entire Vedas, even the Upanishads deal with rituals.

How many common man try for mokesh?? Not even 0.00000001%. So how can they except mokesh??

You are reinforcing my original point. I don't think you read my original post

Namste
What is a a "common man"?
My experience is that Hinduism appeals to individuals and it is the diversity of individuals all interested in Hinduism which may give an impression of "everything goes" as they begin to study and practice at different points.

The diversity of Individuals shall find that it too has always been a part of a whole...

Sri Krishna does speak of yoga, but he doesn't limit the applicant, in my view.

A common man is a householder, one who is not eager for moksa and does not have time to dedicate himself to Vedic studies.

 

[Sumit]

But does not address my original point, which is that there is a supposed lack of texts pertaining to the common man and his life.

All texts are for common man. Those texts do not address any person of special category that fall from sky.

Doesn't change the fact that women ans shudras were banned from Vedic studies.

But does this prove these scriptures are not for women even if these scriptures contain names of women rishis who researched different verses?

The mimansaks are pretty much the final word on the Samhita portion. They accept that the entire Vedas, even the Upanishads deal with rituals.

My ques is are you a vedic scholar?? Are you??

A common man is a householder, one who is not eager for moksa and does not have time to dedicate himself to Vedic studies.

There are many books but if so called "common man" has no time to read them than Hinduism is not responsible for that.

 

[Vinayaka]

Even if the 'common man' can't be defined, anyone can read or hear this Yamas and Niyamas - Most people are familiar with these guidelines. Maybe if you come from a scripture based religion, you look for a scripture based religion? Hinduism isn't particularly scripture based, particularly for the so called 'common man' whatever that means. It's more practice based, and of course there is a huge difference between reading a scripture, and actually practicing what that scripture suggests.

I gave handed out pamphlets of the yamas and niyamas, if nothing else, to demonstrate we have ethics. Then of course you encounter people who come from a rule/dogma based religion, and can't understand the difference between a rule and a recommended guideline.

 

[vistascan]

All texts are for common man. Those texts do not address any person of special category that fall from sky.

And yet the punishment for a Sudra who listens to a Veda recitation is to have his ears filled with molten lead

But does this prove these scriptures are not for women even if these scriptures contain names of women rishis who researched different verses?

We only have what the ancients did to go by. All law books prohibit women and Shudras from Vedic studies.

My ques is are you a vedic scholar?? Are you??

And when I say No, you'll say I have no authority to speak on the matter

There are many books but if so called "common man" has no time to read them than Hinduism is not responsible for that.

Name the books for the common man, so far you have been unable to name a single one