Desicritics Comments on Why I am a Hindu?

Comment by shadaan

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:37:05 EDT

Religions are all good if you look at them from the outside, they tell you that they have originated from God and when you look deeper there is a hirechy that dresses in special clothes that act as gardians of the religion. Look further they have a rich history of absolute evil that contain, abuse,exploitation and division and they divide and rule. How could this idea have come from God. Maybe the God we believe in is not God but opinions of people that tell you that.We have not learned anything, especially from religion, we are still busy with wars, anger, suspicion, killing, exploitation etc etc. What do you mean that you are a Hindu.

Comment by Ruvy

Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:38:11 EDT

Desh, This brief description is from the Jewish Virtual Library. Reading the book "Truth of the Bible Code", by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover will yield an immense amount of information in its appendices (the question of the existence of encoded information in the Torah is a different question, but the point of the Torah Code is not to predict events but to provide a Watermark of the unity of the Torah and its Author). Reading the following pulled from what is ultimately a Christian web-site, you see Satinover cited, and get a dose of the kind of information that you will see in his work. Even though the date of the entry is 2003, the entry itself was written in the rabbinic calendar year 5759 - sometime after September 1998. This last entry deals with the accuracy of the Torah - that is to say, how can a Jew living now rely on the accuracy of the Hebrew Torah in front of him? This is important. There were no Kinko's or Sir Speedy's 3,300 years ago when the Torah was given to us at Horev. So there was no place to make a photocopy of the text. The shapes of the Hebrew letters changed over the millennia, but the letters in the Torah themselves did not. The alef is still an alef, the bet is still a bet, and the Torah still begins with the words b'resh�th bar� eloh�-m et hasham�yim v'et ha'�retz "With Wisdom G-d created the heavens and the earth." [b'reshith/Genesis 1:1]. shavua tov have a good week! Ruvy

Comment by Desh

Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:12:37 EDT

Ruvy: Thanks so much for the education.. the description of NaHmanides seems very interesting and intriguing! As much as I not had a very limited understanding of Judaism, i have made an attempt to understand the other two cousins (have an English translation of Quran at my house as well). My discussion above is basically from that perspective. Can you please point me to some more information on NaHmanides? Happy Shabbat... Shalom, -d.

Comment by Ruvy

Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:53:17 EDT

Desh, A brief comment, and then I must run! My description, credited to NaHmanides adds in elements of Kabbala - specifically the concepts of two lights interacting for 15 billion years. Shabbat Shalom, Ruvy

Comment by Ruvy

Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:26:59 EDT

Well, Desh, it looks like we are having a discussion we ought to have had a long time ago. We can dispense discussing the caste system as we agree on it. Others may not, but it is not my place to argue with Hindus or tell them what to believe. I can tell you what I believe. What I write here is a very abbreviated summary of the concepts of NaHmanides, who set these concepts down some eight centuries ago. I do not do him justice in my puerile attempt, but I'll try. A previous rabbi, scientist, doctor and scholar, Maimonides, commented that the story of creation as it is related in b'reshith/Genesis is only fit for schoolchildren or people so simple that they could absorb their moral lessons in no other way. Thus, the literalist interpretation of Torah so many Christian fundies insist upon is fitted to them if that is the only way they can absorb their moral lessons. NaHmanides looked at the text and came up with the following. In the beginning there was only G-d - Whose Form or Shape, no human can discern. He said "let there be light, and there was light;" - and for fifteen billion years, a lesser light and a greater light approached each other and repelled each other, building up an tremendous amount of energy. All this energy was concentrated in a tiny part of G-d, from which He withdrew Himself (NaHmanides described this tiny speck as being the size of a mustard seed - the smallest known thing that one could see 800 years ago). About 15 billion years ago, there was a huge explosion, and the tiny speck divided into ten s'firot (roughly dimensions) seven of which broke apart immediately). The remaining three s'firot did not break. From the Jewish point of view, we are all essentially particles of light, and all part of G-d. So, if I look at you, I'm looking at a tiny bit of G-d. And vice versa. From the Jewish point of view, most of the universe is comprised of the Mind of G-d, the Intelligence that Thought to say, "let there be light" thirty billion years ago. G-d is neither male nor female. Like Latin, Hebrew has only two genders, so therefore all things must be rendered in one gender or another. Referring to G-d as He is a grammatical convenience of Hebrew - It would be a more accurate translation. And yes, there are instances where G-d is referred to as a She in Hebrew. I relate this to you because it is not dissimilar from the Big Bang theory generally put forth by quantum physicists. I'm not a physicist. But Dr. Gerald Schroeder, whose acquaintance I have made, is, and he related NaHmanides' description of Creation to the Big Bang in a book, "Genesis and the The Big Bang". This is the reason I contacted Dr. Schroeder about the collection of the works of Sri Ramana Maharishi by Dr. Sithambaranthan when Meenakshi reviewed it a little over a month ago. Anyway, the Sabbath approaches, and I must get off the computer for 25 hours or so. I bid you a good Sabbath. Ruvy

Comment by Desh

Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:32:19 EDT

Ruvy: Thanks for such a detailed discussion and some excellent points! My view and interpretation was mainly from the stand-point of philosophy and the wherewithal that one can access due to an almost "Open Source Approach" to spirituality. That is why every conceivably antagonistic idea and rule co-exists with the other within the Vedantic pantheon. Now, there have been frictions and bad blood but never to the level of hatred that exists between Shia and Sunni..or even Islam and Judaism... and a lot of those antagonistic attitudes have come down over the years. I totally agree with you on caste system. As I have said this should have been dealt a firm blow long time back but it was never hit at with full force. What the "secular" government in India is doing now will only emphasize and increase its mess. But I agree caste system should have been thrown out long time back. Now about idol worship. This is not as straight forward as most Abrahamic religions make it out to be. And I will be very candid on this. The reason why Abrahamic religions insist on doing away with idols is because God is "formless". Now, that is a conclusion also of Vedanta but along with that conclusion come a lot of implications.... that if God is formless.. then it really has NO CONCEPT OF FORM.. NONE whatsoever! Can one imagine that? Mind is Form itself as it is limited and defining. What God should have no form? The only consistent answer is given by MONISM - and NOT MONOTHEISM. And that is where I have a feeling that the Abrahamic religions did not do enough homework, for they insist on Formless but also on Monotheism. Now, just for the record, the difference is that Monotheism says "There is only One God". While Monism says "Everything is God". So, while Monotheism insists on "God and ...."(Satan/Creation/etc) paradigm; Monism is "God." paradigm. In fact, true (and I mean ruthlessly honest) Monism would not even call it God.. for that is distinction enough! To understand the incosistency of "Monotheism + formless" paradigm - take a sheet of paper.. and draw a line from top to bottom.. anywhere just to separate one half from another. Do you see a "form" now? Drawing ANY distinction is the creation of a form! Do you see the fallacy of this combination of beliefs? Vedanta to begin with was atheist - not the way atheism is understood in the west, but it was the belief that there there nothing "miraculous" about the entire existence.. so there is no one "doing" any miracles. What we call miracles is simply a property of consciousness. We childishly call that miracle. It is in Yoga Vasistha that VAsistha brings it out in no uncertain terms - when he calls those who believe in Divinity and fate as fools! Vivekananda had said an important point - that the Sanskrit word that is used for "Existence" - Srishti - does NOT mean creation... rather it means manifestation. This is an important distinction.. and ONLY this definition of existence is consistence with the Formless+Monism paradigm.. Vasistha has also used the same definition. So, what I am saying is that you cannot simply use the "formless God" as a catch-phrase... it has a lot of logical and real implications around it.. it raises HUGE questions that go to the heart of what "Truth" of existence IS... which I believe now, have been side-stepped by philosophers of most religions. They have not addressed them. They took one conclusion and just created a whole world around it thus negating the principle itself. Form arises in mind. Idol is a physical representation. In my view, shunning the Idol but reveling in the useless antics of mind, which is nothing more than a baggage of the past, is nonsensical. Either you go the whole hog.. of silencing the mind - and removing all traces of form.. or remove the negativity about just the physical representation - Idol. When you give a name to God or any characteristics.. that is a form. Ask any artist. He or she will first conceive a sculpture or painting in his/her mind... what it is .. how it looks.. how it behaves... et al. physical sculpture is just the final representation. No different. Even calling a "God" .. as God.. or He or She.. is creating form. How do you know "God" is a "He" as opposed to "She".. that differentiation is predicated on a "form". Words are the first step to creating form. So even insisting on primacy of a "Word" is insisting on "Form"! Like these... there are a lot of questions.. these are just the superficial ones. In the next layer you come to even more profound and hard questions. Unless one answers them, one will not know the difference. So, personally, given that form is in very rare cases (only the few "Realized" Souls have done it)been eradicated, I believe that fighting over which "form" is superior and which one isn't is nonsense. That is why I do not think there is anything "wrong" with Idol worship.. if one does not understand the full ramification of formless creation (not just God).

Comment by Ruvy

Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:47:26 EDT

Desh There was no insistence on "just believe what I say". The teacher was as much part of that learning process as the student was. And just as the teacher could choose a student.. the student could also choose a teacher. Such a scenario obviates any belief system. It was only when lesser minds took over the reigns of learning in Vedic society that such practices were replaced by superstition and one sided traffic in schools. Interesting read. I can't criticize its content, and I won't try. The background material is entirely too foreign to me. I don't have problems with the conceptualization of these ideas as you lay them out, Desh. My problems arise when looking at what they have evolved into in practice on the ground. The only places in the world where these ideas are viewed with any authority are India and Nepal. One must look to the practice of them on the ground. Whatever religious or historical reasons are given for caste differentiation, it seems rather strange to condemn someone to following the caste of his father (or mother). Castes, for example, seem to be utilitarian - not holy. There is nothing wrong with a utilitarian division of labor or approach to spirituality. At least that's the way you describe them in your article. But your native land views them entirely differently - and it appears to suffer terribly by that view. This seems to occur in two ways; one, by imposing an oppressive class system on hundreds of millions of people; and two, by generating a fatalistic attitude in the face of what appears to this "foreigner from a shallow culture" to be terrible injustice imposed upon hundreds of millions of people. I'm not saying this to try to impeach the belief system - or lack of belief system - that you follow. I'm saying this because in the belief system I was raised to follow, it says "justice, justice, shall you pursue." That concept seems absent in the only societies that appear to follow what can be called "a predominantly Hindu way of thought", for lack of a better term. In addition, I need to be absolutely clear here. I'm not casting stones from a glass house. Israeli society is sluiced through and through with the hypocrisy and injustice imported into it from the hateful society of Poland-Russia that its leaders and elite came from. Jewish society in America and Europe is sluiced through and through with similar, but less blatant and obvious hypocrisy and injustice. I am the first to state that - up front and in the open. My second point. When the idol - the wood and stone - becomes more important than the principle of existence it represents, that is when you have idolatry and idol worship. This is what happened in the Sumerian society in Ur where Abraham's father was a high priest. Abraham was directed to walk away from this set-up because trees, idols of wood and stone, had become the objects of veneration and worship - rather than the principle of the Universe that the wood, stone or tree was supposed to represent. That is why my faith eschews idols and idol worship altogether. It is all too human a habit to forget the principle of the thing and concentrate on the thing itself. Now bear in mind that Jews do not seek to wean you away from your point of view. We, unlike the militant, imperialistic and ultimately genocidal religions of Christianity and Islam, have our rules for our own people - and set a minimum for the rest of the world to follow. Based on what Man Singh has posted elsewhere as the minimum precepts of Dharma, the Seven Laws of Noah appear adequately covered. In short, eliminating the most obvious injustices in Indian society, like the caste system and slavery/prostitution, and returning to recognizing and emphasizing the principle of existence that trees and idols represent, would serve to bring India in good stead from this Jew's point of view. As I said earlier, I'm not casting stones from a glass house. We Jews have a much tougher path to cleaning out the Augean Stables of our own sin and evil.

Comment by Desh

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:04:29 EDT

Thanks all for the comments! Kerty - As I understand from your mango tree analogy - what you are saying is that if one realizes that the Brahman is the Truth.. and goes in its search, one cannot and should not say that Idol worship (or other rituals) is a sin. I could not agree with you more! And I think Swami Vivekananda put it best in his Chicago speech "that just because one has gone beyond that stage one cannot call it sin anymore than a old man can call his youth a sin!" (something to this effect). But I think most Hindus have not really evaluated what the learned had to say... the more I go through their minds through their written word, the more it amazes me! The underlying emotion of devaluing their own name and letting the message find its own level is truly striking. Read "Yoga Vasistha" and you will see what I mean.

Comment by kerty

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:25:24 EDT

Desh Nice expose of Vedantist Point of View. As you know, there are many other schools of thoughts - they do not necessary contradict or negate each other but rather compliment each other. For great many of the masses, idols, labels, rituals, gurus, gods are the ladders to climb to higher dimensions of consciousness - one does not need a ladder after one has moved up higher. But just because a person no longer needs a ladder, does not mean there is no need for that ladder for other people, for future generations to come. Society has to make conscious effort to keep these ladders so other people can use them to climb up. I like Mangos but I can not cut down mango tree after I had my fill of mangos. I would look unwise if try to discard the tree just because barks and leaves of the tree do not taste as good as mango fruit, and thus useless to me. I could use the reasoning that I can always eat other fruits as there are plenty others out there, so I should not get attached to Mangos or mango tree. But that mango tree does not exist just for me and only me. That Mango tree exists for many other people. Mango exists because mango tree is alive. That even of I do not enjoy mango, I would be duty bound to make sure it is not harmed or taken down. It is easy to enjoy spiritual fruits, philosophical speculations - but in the end, if they shape no reality, can not manifest into anything concrete, can not translate into meaningful way of life - then such idle speculations have no meaning or relevance. Spiritual ideas have potency because they can organize people's lives, shape a way of life, order a society in certain way, create a proverbial mango tree whose fruits many of us would enjoy. The utilitarianism when applied to spiritual practices should be at higher level than an individual. No? What we often decry as

Comment by Morris

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:32:27 EDT

With that thinking there must be some hindus around who do'nt even know that they are hibdus. I will read once or twice again to see if I can really undrstand what you are talking about.

Comment by Guido

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:52:38 EDT

Desh, Nice read. Your definition of a Hindu seems very similar to the concepts of enlightenment offered by Eckhart Tolle in "The Power of Now". Ciao, Guido

Comment by Aaman

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:02:00 EDT

Interesting viewpoints - many paths and many options -- choose your own

Comment by Buddha

Thu, 4 Sep 2008 02:02:19 EDT

Hinduism is no doubt one of the oldest religion we have, it also has lot of Gods and Goddess, cast and differences, which i dislike in the religion. well i have dugg your story lets see what the community has to say...