Ask a Hindu/Ask an Indian

[Swedishguy]

What do you think about the carnivorous cow?

 

[Elrohir]

Your question is a valid concern, but it doesn't apply to every practicing "Hindu". As you may know, Hinduism is not really a word native to Indian followers of Varnashram dharma. It was either synthesized by Muslim colonial influence or British colonial influence, I can't quite remember. I believe Muslim, since they needed a word to use for believers of the religion found beyond the Sindhu river, which somehow became Hindu. Correct me if I'm wrong here, anybody.

So as I was saying, "Hindu" is a very broad set of beliefs. This loss of identity and merging with a faceless supreme being (a/k/a Moksha)? This is a "Brahmavadi" belief. Not all "Hindus" believe that Moksha is the best destination for spirit souls.

The Vaishnavas (those who believe Vishnu a/k/a Krishna to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead) believe the ultimate destination is to be with Krishna on the Vaikuntha planets (think of them as the ultimate heaven of Vaishnavism, for the lack of a better term to explain to an audience with a largely Christian background [even if a lot of you are athiest ] ).

There are Brahmavadis, Vaishnavites, Shaivites, etc. are all under this so-called "Hindu" umbrella. They all have a distinct concept of what the supreme destination should be.

All right, so not everyone who is a "Hindu" believes in merging with God, or Vishnu or whatever. But for those who do (And I believe Aneeshm is one of them, but I could be wrong) why is this considered so attractive or desirable? I don't understand why you would want such a thing.

Also, what happens in your theology to those who don't want to merge with some higher power, like me? Do I get a choice in it, or am I eventually forced to it after enough bites at the apple?

Under what circumstances would most Hindu's kill a cow, or allow it to be killed? The carnivorous cow made me think of this - if the cow wouldn't stop, and kept breaking free and the family could no longer afford to have their chickens eaten, could they kill the cow?

 

[Rossiya]

What ethnic groups are there in Indialand?

 

[TheDervish]

All right, so not everyone who is a "Hindu" believes in merging with God, or Vishnu or whatever. But for those who do (And I believe Aneeshm is one of them, but I could be wrong) why is this considered so attractive or desirable? I don't understand why you would want such a thing.

Also, what happens in your theology to those who don't want to merge with some higher power, like me? Do I get a choice in it, or am I eventually forced to it after enough bites at the apple?

Under what circumstances would most Hindu's kill a cow, or allow it to be killed? The carnivorous cow made me think of this - if the cow wouldn't stop, and kept breaking free and the family could no longer afford to have their chickens eaten, could they kill the cow?

I really don't know much about Brahmavadi theology, but as someone who converted to Vaishnavism, I learned only about why we should not want moksha. It is better to maintain one's own identity as a servant of Krishna and to serve on one of the Vaikuntha planets or on Krishnaloka itself. Moksha is considered almost selfish in comparison (lack of a better word). I presume those that aspire for moksha want a unified consciousness and to feel the bliss of God. I personally have nothing against brahmavadis and I respect their beliefs.

As far as I know, there are only 2 ways to achieve moksha; through an actual spiritual process which you can follow under the guidance of a brahmavadi guru, or you can achieve instant moksha by getting killed by Vishnu or one of His avatars (which should only occur if you mean ill will toward a Vishnu avatar).

For example, Kamsa wanted to kill Krishna. When Krishna killed Kamsa, Kamsa achieved Moksha. To take birth as the enemy of a Vishnu avatar; even that requires a lot of achievements as a "Hindu". These are all Krishna's divine lilas, so to take part in them is like trying to take part as an actor in the greatest blockbuster movie in the history of humankind. Even to play the hated villain will require massive credentials.

So to ease your concerns, as someone who is not under the "Hindu" umbrella and as someone who does not want Moksha, you don't have to worry about accidentally achieving it, or having it imposed on you.

As far as the carnivorous cow, that's a good question, one that I have no answer.

 

[GenMarshall]

When one is practacing Hindu (or one of the Yogas), is it nessicary to use Hindi or can one use their own vernacular (native tounge) language?

Can you tell me in more detail on what Karma Yoga is. Since that one has grabbed my attention.

 

[aneeshm]

When one is practacing Hindu (or one of the Yogas), is it nessicary to use Hindi or can one use their own vernacular (native tounge) language?

Language does not matter. The vast bulk of literature on these topics, however, is in the Indian languages, most of it in Sanskrit. English translations of the most important works should be easily available, however, so that should not be a concern.

Can you tell me in more detail on what Karma Yoga is. Since that one has grabbed my attention.

Basically, Karma Yoga refers to living life in this world, but detaching yourself from your actions. All actions have a karmic effect. This karmic effect attaches to us if we attach ourselves to our actions. If, however, we do not consider ourselves the "doer" (karta), merely the "witness" (saakshi), then no karma attaches to us. That way, we can simply work off our previous karma, and get no new karma, thus leading to liberation once everything past is worked out.

It's a bit more complex than that. The detailed but simple explanation can be found here here. Go to Volume One->Karma Yoga, and (sequentially) read all the topics there.

 

[silver 2039]

What is Bramacharya and the Left hand path?

 

[Sophie 378]

That's a very, very tough question to answer. Probably the first tenet which I can think of is the appeal to personal experience. According to Swami Vivekananda, you are not required to believe anything except that which you have experienced.

The ultimate goal is the liberation of the soul from the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, and from its attachment to the world. We must BECOME the supreme.

Please could you expand on this? Unless I'm seriously confused / misinterpreting you, that looks like a contradiction in terms. How can you tell if you have experienced reincarnation? If you can't tell, why do you believe it? Or have you personally experienced reincarnation - if so, could you tell us more about that?

 

[aneeshm]

Please could you expand on this? Unless I'm seriously confused / misinterpreting you, that looks like a contradiction in terms. How can you tell if you have experienced reincarnation? If you can't tell, why do you believe it? Or have you personally experienced reincarnation - if so, could you tell us more about that?

You're not required to believe in re-incarnation, the same way you're not required to believe in the theory of gravity - your agreement is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. You either agree with it, or you don't.

Yogis who have progressed to a certain point or beyond are able to recollect their past lives. It is based on the testimony of one such person that we trust that we may believe in reincarnation.

Different schools of Hindu philosophical thought accept different standards of proof. The ones which almost all agree on, however, are:

a) Perception
b) Inference (from perception)
c) Testimony

If it can be shown that a person is trustworthy, then his testimony can also be taken as true. For instance, what is the reason that we try to embark upon one of the yogic paths at all? Is it not that we are convinced that it is worth a try? And what makes it worth a try, in our opinion? Not having tried it ourselves, is it not the testimony of someone who has tried it, and whose word we accept?

The orthodox standards for trustworthiness are pretty strict.

In fact, if you consider the matter carefully, you will realise that all humans use these three (and only these three) methods of proof.

Because yogis with certain accomplishments are considered trustworthy, their testimony is taken to be true. Based on that testimony was the theory of reincarnation derived.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

How do you know that a yogi is trustworthy in speaking of reincarnation, and not, say, an Abrahamic prophet?

 

[Flak]

Do you believe that the thousands of incidents of bride burning are in fact murders, or suicides? What proportion do you believe exists if they are not all murders? If any are indeed suicides, can you conceive of a woman actually setting herself on fire (I ask this question in this manner because I truly find this inconceivable from my very Western view point. Perhaps from your Indian point of view, this is actually a reasonable possibility?). Do you think that bride burning will ever stop?

 

[aneeshm]

Do you believe that the thousands of incidents of bride burning are in fact murders, or suicides? What proportion do you believe exists if they are not all murders? If any are indeed suicides, can you conceive of a woman actually setting herself on fire (I ask this question in this manner because I truly find this inconceivable from my very Western view point. Perhaps from your Indian point of view, this is actually a reasonable possibility?). Do you think that bride burning will ever stop?

You seem to have confused dowry harassment and murder cases with widow-burning.

It is a lamentable fact that some families in India harass their new daughter-in-law for dowry, and a few even go the the extent of killing the new bride if they think she didn't bring in enough dowry. In my view, and the view of the dharmacharyas and the Indian state's law, it is murder, pure and simple.

Yes, I think bride-burning will stop with the advent of education and reform, and with the rise of a new national Hindu consciousness. So will dowry. In fact, very few people from the educated middle classes and above now take or give dowry.





Widow-burning, of the practice known as Sati, was largely eradicated by the time India gained independence. Since 1947, there have been only 40 cases. The last one was, IIRC, in 1987. The great Hindu reformer, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, had it banned and made it a punishable offence under the law.

There was one recent case (2006), but it was not really widow-burning, because the relatives of the woman, and other people of her village, tried to stop her, but she later gave them the slip and immolated herself.

Sati, in the beginning, could be equated to a woman committing suicide after the death of her husband, out of love. During the unrest caused by the Islamic invaders in the Middle Ages, many women chose death before dishonour (read up on the Rajasthani custom of Jauhar), and later, it became more common.

Let me ask you this: don't people, everywhere in the world, sometimes commit suicide after their husband or wife dies? Sati, in the ancient and early Middle Age, was something like that. People of that time chose to immortalise that act of love by sometimes building shrines to the woman. Later, it became a degenerate, degraded, disgusting and appalling practice of forcibly burning the widow on her husband's funeral pyre. Thankfully, it's now extinct.





My libertarian political views tell me that the woman (and the man) should have the choice of committing suicide any way they want, including immolating themselves on their partner's pyre, if they want, but common sense tells me that allowing it will lead to more trouble than it's worth.

 

[aneeshm]

How do you know that a yogi is trustworthy in speaking of reincarnation, and not, say, an Abrahamic prophet?

It is quite possible for an Abrahamnic prophet to be trustworthy - but alas, there haven't been any trustworthy ones yet!




On a more serious note: I haven't bothered to know the exact specifications for trustworthiness, I'll find out and get back to you soon.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Because, again, whether to trust one person over another as to whether their divine claims are correct is . . . tricky, to say the least.

 

[aneeshm]

Because, again, whether to trust one person over another as to whether their divine claims are correct is . . . tricky, to say the least.

I know exactly what you mean. Many of the modern-day so-called "gurus" are fakes.

However, as I said, the criterion for deciding whether or not the testimony of a person is genuine or not are very, very strict.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, what are they? How do you know these criteria are themselves genuine?

 

[Flak]

You seem to have confused dowry harassment and murder cases with widow-burning.

No, I think I'm quite clear on what I mean.

Widow-burning, of the practice known as Sati, was largely eradicated by the time India gained independence. Since 1947, there have been only 40 cases. The last one was, IIRC, in 1987.

In 2005, the latest year in which statistics are available from the National Crime Records Bureau of India, confirmed and reported dowry murders, including bride burning totaled 7026.

http://ncrb.nic.in/crime2005/cii-2005/Table 3.2.pdf (Warning: This is a .pdf file!). Those numbers do not have any relationship to reported suicides, which are mentioned in another related report here for those interested.

There was one recent case (2006), but it was not really widow-burning, because the relatives of the woman, and other people of her village, tried to stop her, but she later gave them the slip and immolated herself.


Let me ask you this: don't people, everywhere in the world, sometimes commit suicide after their husband or wife dies? Sati, in the ancient and early Middle Age, was something like that. People of that time chose to immortalise that act of love by sometimes building shrines to the woman. Later, it became a degenerate, degraded, disgusting and appalling practice of forcibly burning the widow on her husband's funeral pyre. Thankfully, it's now extinct.

Your statements would seem to contradict what the Indian government itself is saying on the matter. Further, any search on the topic on the internet that most Human Rights organizations believe that these number are vastly underrepresented since most of the crimes, including the outright public murders, manage to go unreported or are otherwise not prosecuted. Since this is disputable, I won't touch that. It's better to just stick with known facts on such a sensitive topic.

In 2005, the latest year in which statistics are available from the National Crime Records Bureau of India, confirmed and reported dowry murders, including bride burning totaled 7026.

There are claims however by Save The Indian Family (a men's right's organization) that a large number of these 7000 women actually committed. So I have to ask again, do you truly see the world in such a way that 7000 women might actually commit suicide by burning themselves to death? This is simply something I can't imagine happening in my own culture. Also, is it in any way reasonable, if these are indeed murders as reported and prosecuted, that so many women would be killed in such a horrible manner? Again, this is something I struggle to perceive. But I fully admit to being totally biased from my Western perspective.

 

[aneeshm]

No, I think I'm quite clear on what I mean.

Trust me, you're not.

The numbers you gave refer to families killing the bride while the husband is still alive, because they want dowry. That's plain murder, nothing else.

Sati refers to the immolation of the widow on the funeral pyre of her husband.

Sati has been eradicated, bride-burning has not.

 

[aneeshm]

@ Eran

Here the attributes of an enlightened person, according to the Geeta:

2.55:‘‘The Lord said, ‘A man is then said to be steadfast in mind when he has renounced all the desires of his mind and achieved contentment of the Self through the Self.’’’
When a man has renounced all his desires and achieved his Soul’s contentment through the contemplation of his Soul, he is said to be a man of firm discernment. This Self is apprehended only through complete abandonment of passion. The sage who has viewed the ineffable beauty of his Self and found perfect satisfaction in him is the man with a steady judgement.

2.56:"He is indeed a steady-minded sage who is unmoved by sorrow and indifferent to happiness, and who has overcome his passion fear, and anger.’’
He whose mind is untroubled by bodily, accidental, and worldly sorrows, and who has rid himself of desire for physical pleasures, and whose passions, fear, and anger have been subdued, is the sage with discrimination who has achieved the culmination of spiritual discipline.

2.57:"That man has a steady mind who is entirely free from attachment and who neither gloats over success nor abhors failure."
That man has a firm wisdom who is totally free from infatuation and who neither welcomes good fortune nor repudiates misfortune. That alone is auspicious which draws a Soul to the being of God, whereas that which pulls the mind to temptations of the material world is inauspicious. The man of discrimination is not too happy in favourable circumstances and he also does not scorn adversities, because neither is the object which is fit for attainment different from him nor is there for him any evil that may sully the purity of his mind.

2.58:"As a turtle pulls in its limbs, this man reins in his senses from all objects, and then he truly has a steady mind.’’

2.59: "While objects of sensual pleasure cease to be for the man who withdraws his senses from them, his desire for these objects yet remains; but the desires of the man of discrimination are completely erased by his perception of God.’’

"But that man achieves spiritual tranquillity who has mastered his mind, and who remains unaffected by sense-objects although he may be roaming amidst them, because his senses are properly restrained."

Possessed of the means of spiritual realization, the sage who has experienced an intuitive perception of the identity of Self and the Supreme Spirit achieves the state of the most sublime peace, because he has subdued his senses, and therefore remained untouched by their objects even though he may be wandering in their midst. No prohibitions are needed for such a man. There is for him nothing unpropitious anywhere against which he should fight and defend himself. There is also for him no good for which he should yearn.

"After realizing the ultimate repose, all his (the seeker’s) sorrows disappear, and the blissful mind of such a man quickly grows in firmness. "

Blessed with a vision of God’s ineffable glory and his divine grace, all the worshipper’s griefs-the temporal world and its objects which are the abode of all sorrows-vanish and his power of discrimination grows strong and steady.

"The true worshipper (yogi) remains awake amidst what is night for all creatures, but the perishable and transient worldly pleasures amidst which all living creatures stay awake are like night for the sage who has perceived reality."

The transcendental Spirit is like night for living beings because he can be neither seen nor comprehended by thought. So he is like night, but it is in this night that the spiritually conscious man remains awake because he has seen the formless and known the incomprehensible. The seeker finds access to God through control of senses, peace of mind, and meditation.

That is why the perishable worldly pleasures for which living beings toil day after day is night for God’s true worshipper.The sage alone, who beholds the individual Self and the Universal Self and is indifferent to desire, succeeds in his enterprise of God-realization. So he dwells in the world and is yet untouched by it.

"As the water of the many rivers falls into the full and ever constant ocean without affecting its tranquillity, even so the pleasures of sense merge into a man of steady discrimination without producing any deviation, and such a man attains to the state of the most sublime peace rather than yearn for sensual enjoyment.’’

‘‘The man who has renounced all desire, and who conducts himself without ego, arrogance, and attachment, is the one who achieves peace.’’

Men who have given up all desire, and whose actions are entirely free from the feelings of I and mine, realize the ultimate peace beyond which there is nothing to strive for and achieve.

"Such, O Arjun, is the steadfastness of the man who has realized God; after attaining to this state he subdues all temptation and, resting firmly in his faith, with his death he continues in this state of rapture of the union of his Self with God.’’

Such is the state of one who has realized God. Rivers of temporal objects merge into these ocean-like sages who are endowed with self control and an intuitive perception of God.

"He whose intellect is aloof all round, who is without desire, and who has conquered his mind, attains to the ultimate state that transcends all action through renunciation."

"Learn in brief from me, O son of Kunti, of how one who is immaculate achieves realization of the Supreme Being, which represents the culmination of knowledge.’’

"Blessed with a pure intellect, firmly in command of the Self, with objects of sensual gratification like sound forsaken , with both fondness and revulsion destroyed,-"

"Dwelling in seclusion, eating frugally, subdued in mind, speech and body, incessantly given to the yog of meditation, firmly resigned,-’’

"Giving up conceit, arrogance of power, yearning, ill humour, and acquisitiveness, devoid of attachment, and in possession of a mind at repose, a man is worthy of becoming one with God

"In this serene-tempered man, who views all beings equally, who abides intently in the Supreme Being, neither grieving over nor hankering after anything, there is fostered a faith in me that transcends all else.’’

"Through his transcendental faith he knows my essence well, what my reach is, and having thus known my essence he is at once united with me."

The Supreme Being is perceived at the moment of attainment and, no sooner has this perception come about than the worshipper finds (that) his own Soul (is) blessed with the attributes of God himself: that his soul is-like God-indestructible, immortal, eternal, ineffable, and universal.

Pretty clear, I'd say.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, so that says what are the criteria, but why? On what grounds can you say that the Geeta is a reliable source? Doesn't that involve circular reasoning, to trust it in the first place?

(just trying to understand, of course. I am certainly not trying to be antagonistic, in case you were wondering.)