Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

In the West economists talk of division of labour but they are unable to translate their ideas into practice. Any society has to depend on the proper execution of a variety of jobs.

It is from this social necessity that the concept of division of labour arose. But who is to decide the number of people for each type of work? Who is to determine the proportions for society to function in a balanced manner? In the West they had no answer to these questions. Everybody there competes with everybody else for comfortable jobs and everywhere you find greed and bitterness resulting from such rivalries. And, as a consequence of all this, there are lapses from discipline and morality.

In our country we based the division of labour on a hereditary system and, until it worked, people had a happy, peaceful and contented life. Today even a multimillionaire is neither contented nor happy. Then even a cobbler led a life without cares. What sort of progress have we achieved today by inflaming evil desires in all hearts and pushing everyone into the slough of discontent? Not satisfied with such "progress" there is talk everywhere that we must go forward rapidly in this manner.

Greed and covetousness were unknown during the centuries when varna dharma flourished. People were bound together in small well-knit groups and they discovered that there was happiness in their being together. Besides they had faith in religion, fear of God and devotion, and a feeling of pride in their own family deities and in the modes of worshipping them. In this way they found fullness in their lives without any need to suffer the hunger and disquiet of seeking external objects. All society experienced a sense of well-being.

Though divided into a number of groups people were all one in their devotion to the Lord; and though they had their own separate family deities, they were brought together in the big temple that was for the entire village or town. This temple and its festivals had a central place in their life and they remained united as the children of the deity enshrined in it. When there was a car festival(rathotsava) the Brahmins and the people living on the outskirts of the village[the so-called backward classes] stood shoulder to shoulder and pulled the chariot together. We wonder whether those days of peace and harmony will ever return. Neither jealousy nor bitterness was known then and people did not trade charges against one another. Everyone did his job, carried out his duties, in a spirit of humility and with a sense of contentment.

Considering all this, would it be correct to say that Hinduism faced all its challenges in spite of the divisions in society? No, no. Such a view would be totally wrong. The fact is that our religion has survived as a living force for ages together because of these very divisions. Other great religions which had but one uniform dharma for all have gone under. And there is the fear that existing religions of the same type might suffer a similar fate. What has sustained Hinduism as an eternal religion? We must go back to the analogy of the fuel sticks. Like a number of small bundles of sticks bound together strong and secure-instead of all the individual sticks being fastened together-Hindu society is a well-knit union of a number of small groups which are themselves bound up separately as jatis, the cementing factor being devotion to the Lord.

Religions that had a common code of duties and conduct could not withstand attacks from within and without. In India there were many sets of religious beliefs that were contained in, or integrated together with, a common larger system. If new systems of beliefs or dharmas arose from within or if there were inroads by external religious systems, a process of rejection and assimilation took place: what was not wanted was rejected and what was fit to be accepted was absorbed. Buddhism and Jainism sprang from different aspects of the Vedic religion, so Hinduism(later) was able to digest them and was able to accommodate many other sets of beliefs or to make them its own. There was no need for it to treat other systems as adversaries or to carry on a struggle against them.

After the advent of Islam we adopted only some of its customs but not any of its religious concepts. The Moghul influence was felt to some extent in our dress, music, architecture and painting. Even such impressions of the Muslim impact did not survive for long as independent factors but were dissolved in the flow of our Vedic culture. Also the Islamic impact was largely confined to the North; the South did not come much under it and stuck mostly to its own traditional path.

Later, with the coming of the Europeans, faith in the Vedic religion began to decline all over India, in North as well as South. How did this change occur? Why do all political leaders today keep excoriating the varna system, giving it the name of "casteism"? And how has the view gained ground everywhere that the division of jatis has greatly hindered the progress of the nation? And why does the mere mention of the word jati invite a gaol sentence?

I shall tell you later, as best I can, about who is responsible for this state of affairs. For the present let us try to find out why some people want to do away with varna dharma. To them it seems an iniquitous system in which some jatis occupy a high status while some others are pushed down to low depths. They want all to be raised to the same uniform high level.

Is such a step possible or practicable? To find an answer, all that we have to do is to examine conditions in countries where there is no caste. If there were no distinctions of high and low in these lands, we should see no class conflicts there. But in reality what do we see? People in these countries are divided into "advantaged" and disadvantaged" classes who are constantly fighting between themselves. A true understanding of our religion will show that in reality there are no differences in status based on caste among our people. But let us for argument's sake presume that there are; our duty then is to make sure that the feelings of differences are removed, not get rid of varna dharma itself

42

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

One more point must be considered. Even if you concede that the social divisions have caused bitterness among the different sections here, what about the same in other countries? Can the existence of such ill-will in other lands be denied? The differences there, based on wealth and status, cause bitterness and resentment among the underprivileged and poorer sections. In America, it is claimed that all people have enough food, clothing and housing. They say that the Americans are contented people. But what is the reality there? The man who has only one car is envious of another who has two. Similarly, the fact that one person has a bank balance of a hundred million dollars is cause for heart-burning for another with a bank balance of only a million. Those who have sufficient means to live comfortably quarrel with people better off over rights and privileges. Does this not mean that even in a country like the United States there are conflicts between the higher and lower classes of society?

The story is not different in the communist countries. Though everyone is said to be paid the same wages there, they have officers and clerks who do not enjoy the same status. As a result of the order enforced by the state, there may not be any outward signs of quarrel among the different cadres, but jealously and feelings of rivalry must, all the same, exist in the hearts of people. In the higher echelons of power there must be greater rivalry in the communist lands than elsewhere. The dictator of today is replaced by another tomorrow. Is it possible to accord the same status to all in order to prevent the growth of antagonisms? Feeling of high and low will somehow persist, so too the competitive urge.

It seems to me that better than the distinctions prevailing in the West-distinctions that give rise to jealousies and social discord-are the differences mistakenly attributed to the hereditary of vocations. In the old days this arrangement ensured peace in the land with everyone living a contented life. There was neither envy nor hatred and everyone readily accepted his lot.

The different types of work are meant for the good of the people in general. It is wrong to believe that one job belongs to an "inferior" category and another to a "superior type". There is no more efficacious medicine for inner purity than doing one's work, whatever it be, without any desire for reward and doing it to perfection. I must add that even wrong notions about work(one job being better than another or worse) is better that the disparities and differences to be met with in other countries. We are[or were] free from the spirit of rivalry and bitterness that vitiate social life there.

Divided we have remained united, and nurtured our civilization. Other civilizations have gone under because the people of the countries concerned, though seemingly united, were in fact divided. In our case though there were differences in the matter of work there was unity of hearts and that is how our culture and civilization flourished. In other countries the fact that there were no distinctions based on vocations(anyone could do any work) itself gave rise to rivalries and eventually to disunity. They were not able to withstand the onslaught of other civilizations.

It is not practicable to make all people one, nor can everyone occupy the same high position. At the same time it is also unwise to keep people divided into classes that are like water-tight compartments.

The dharmasastras have shown us a middle way that avoids the pitfalls of the two extremes. I have come as a representative of this way and that is why I speak for it: that there ought to be distinctions among various sections of people in the performance of rites but there must be unity of hearts. There should be no confusion between the two.

Though we are divided outwardly in the matter of work, with unity of hearts there will be peace. That was the tradition for ages together in this land-there was oneness of hearts. If every member of society does his duty, does his work, unselfishly and with the conviction that he is doing it for the good of all, considerations of high and low will not enter his mind. If people carry out the duties common to them, however adverse the circumstances be, and if every individual performs the duties that are special to him, no one will have cause for suffering at any time.

43

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

Happiness eludes those who live in a world of comparision. It has nothing to do with a faith, although all faiths advocate inculcating a habit of being contented. *
*
When greed controls a person he/she can go to any extent to satisfy his/her requirements. Late Anna Nicole married an octogenarian to get his love ? naa.. it was property but look at the way things have unfolded later. Bachchi ke baap ka pata nahin..what a lustful, promiscous wasted life for entire 'family'!!!!!!! Pope Benedict is right in saying that Western civilisation has lost its moral bearings and family values have simply evaporated.
**

Shutter Island- Caprio's brilliant new novie!!
44

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

^ ^ ^

It's not only about their late pope admitted, much before that Max Muller has said and also admitted that in British India our ancient culture and practices have been destroyed....
He writes..
"If you approach the Hindus with such feelings, you will teach them neither rectitude, nor science, nor literature. Nay, they might appeal to their own literature, even to their law-books, to teach us at least one lesson of truthfulness, truthfulness to ourselves, or, in other words, - humility.

"Hindus may teach us at least one lesson of truthfulness, that is, truthfulness to ourselves". What did Christian educators do? Instead of learning that truthfulness from Hindus, they destroyed the truthfulness of the Hindus. This is what you acquire from an Aasuric culture like Christianity. They have destroyed your sense of ethics, justice, truthfulness all that you ever valued. If it was all so good for 24 centuries continuously, as documented in the testimonies by non-Hindu visitors to this Hindu land, then what went wrong in less than two centuries? The answer is simple. Keeping all factors constant, the only variable on the scene is the presence of Aasuric influence of Christianity, which has eclipsed the Hindu society"

45

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

the Varna well mentioned by Shri Krishn

Shri Krishn spoke of birth-based classification depending on division of Gun (traits) and Karm (deeds). I do not wish to explain away His statement. Instead, I wish to explain His statement.

The child that arrives on this earth cannot choose its mother and father. It cannot choose surroundings at the time of birth. It cannot choose environment that it would live-in during its early childhood. Depending on its ‘traits and deeds’ in its prior incarnations, it takes birth through Braahman parents or Kshatriya parents or Vaishya parents or Shoodr parents. This does not happen by accident or by coincidence, as the present day rationalists would want us to believe. There is a meticulous system in place that monitors the whole process.
Soul emerges from the Supreme Soul. At its origin, it has no character of its own. It descends on this earth encased in a body. Its ego gives it a distinct identity. Its thoughts and actions (deeds) are guided by this ego. It acquires various traits, in varying degree, in course of its long journey of numerous and successive births. It builds a reservoir of its Gun (traits) and Karm (deeds) through that process. Soul sheds its body at the time of departure from this earth. It does not take with it in physical form the traits it acquired and deeds it performed, during its stay on the earth. In its successive birth, it collects back those traits from the environment of this earth. During the process of birth and growing up, it regains those traits from its parents and environment. Some traits it acquires back during the process of its birth. That include the genes it acquires from its earthly parents. Other traits it acquires back in the process of its growing up. That include the environment it receives in form of friends, teachers, surroundings, and etc.
Each new birth gives the new born a place in the society. With that it gets a preset environment to grow up. This place and environment is the result of its deeds through prior incarnations. These are not by its choice. It cannot choose its parents. It cannot choose its time of birth. It cannot choose its surroundings at the time of birth. It cannot choose its environment during its early childhood.
Process of birth itself takes care of positioning the soul in a certain situation---(a) situation comprising of its genetic combination and childhood surroundings (b) situation depending on its acquired traits and accumulated deeds until its prior incarnation.

46

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

^ ^ ^ ^

The essence of Vedas lies in SrimadBhagvadGita and the Jivatma (creatures) and Parmatama (God) is told in length.

I would produce some of the verses from Gita directly...

Arjuna enquires with God..."O my Lord, O Supreme, what is Brahman? What is the self? What are fruitive activities? What is this material manifestation? Please explain this to me.
Who is the Lord, and how does He live in the body, O Madhusudana? And how can those engaged in devotional service know You at the time of death?"

The God says "The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyatma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities. Arjuna!O best of the embodied beings, the physical nature, which is constantly changing, is called adhibhuta [the material manifestation]. The universal form of the Lord, which includes all the demigods, like those of the sun and moon, is called adhidaiva. And I, the Supreme Lord, represented as the Supersoul in the heart of every embodied being, am called adhiyajna [the Lord of sacrifice] And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt. . ..Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kunti, that state he will attain without fail.
Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in my any form and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.""

"He who meditates on Me, his mind constantly engaged in remembering Me, undeviated from the path, he, O Partha, is sure to reach Me. "

"One should meditate upon the Supreme as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun, and He is transcendental, beyond this material nature.""

47

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

"One who, at the time of death, fixes his life air between the eyebrows and, by the strength of yoga, with an undeviating mind, engages himself in remembering the Supreme Lord in full devotion, will certainly attain to the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
"Persons who are learned in the Vedas, who utter omkara and who are great sages in the renounced order enter into Brahman. Desiring such perfection, one practices celibacy. I shall now briefly explain to you this process by which one may attain salvation."
"The yogic situation is that of detachment from all sensual engagements. Closing all the doors of the senses and fixing the mind on the heart and the life air at the top of the head, one establishes himself in yoga."
"After being situated in this yoga practice and vibrating the sacred syllable om, the supreme combination of letters, if one thinks of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and quits his body, he will certainly reach the spiritual planets."
"For one who always remembers Me without deviation, I am easy to obtain, O son of Prtha, because of his constant engagement in devotional service. "
"After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection."
"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again"
"By human calculation, a thousand ages taken together form the duration of Brahma's one day. And such also is the duration of his night."
"At the beginning of Brahma's day, all living entities become manifest from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they are merged into the unmanifest again."
"Again and again, when Brahma's day arrives, all living entities come into being, and with the arrival of Brahma's night they are helplessly annihilated."
"Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is."
"That which the Vedantists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns--that is My supreme abode."
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is greater than all, is attainable by unalloyed devotion. Although He is present in His abode, He is all-pervading, and everything is situated within Him."

48

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

If you want others to read your post make sure there is lot of white space or space in it. *
*
Otherwise it simply becomes a stack of sentences. Cut & paste is fine but then little bit of embellishment is always good.
**

49

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

^ ^ ^
....my intention was to present a brief summary of my Sanatan Dharma and also a balanced view about Casteism or Varnasrama which people often point out when they talk about Hinduism..

anyway...thanks for suggestion.

50

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

I don't ever remember being a monkey. My and your ancestors were monkeys. That doesn't mean I was born a monkey, does it? And who are homosebins? Humans are called homo sapiens. And all the descendents of apes didn't die out! I remember seeig a chimpanzee the last time I went to a zoo. it was pretty much alive.

I need not eat animals to survive, thank you.

51

Re: Is Hinduism a ‘Universal’ Religion'?

My dear, believe me, Zakir Naik is a twisted old loony.

He says Hindu scriptures refer to Muhammad as "mamah"

This is absolute b*ll$h!t

Mamah= Maam(me) +ahe(to you).
They are called 'sandhis' in Sanskrit.

And this Manusmriti is absolute BS too. Not worth a read. If you need to read this horrible book to be a hindu, I say don't be a hindu.