sporkubus

Oh my God...

Says who? Hinduism is a pretty dumb term, actually. It was used by non-Hindus to lump together a whole variety of religions that had only geography in common. However, the use of the term today is any religious belief or worship that has its foundation in the Vedas. I don't see any reason why it is bad to use the term in that sense, since they do have many things in common. No, not all sects of Hinduism are the same, but so what? That variety is, in my opinion, a very good thing.

Oops. I replied before you changed your post. Oh well. I also forgot to mention: why should I believe that Krishna is Eternal and Unchangeable? Krishna was born and died. According to some Puranas, Shiva was never born and will never die; Shiva is Ishvara. Why should I believe 1) that Krishna is Ishvara, and 2) that Krishna's personality is above the nameless Brahman without form? Seems pretty ridiculous that something with form and name could transcend the Nameless and Formless that the Upanishads describe as the highest.

No, only Brahman is Eternal and Unchangeable: the transcendent, unnameable Brahman that is beyond form. In the sense that I am One with Brahman, I am eternal and unchangeable; but my mind, body, and ego do not even exist.

Interesting, since many Muslims use these supposedly small differences to justify branding other Muslims heretics and killing them, and many Muslims use hadith to decide what the Qur'an actually says when verses are in conflict with each other. The religion of the Vedas is immense and offers many, many paths to God. God is too huge, too transcendent and vast to be contained in one tiny book or one man's belief system. Even many Vaishnavas would say "It's okay for someone to worship Shiva in this life, because that will lead them to Vishnu/Krishna in their next life." It is all part of the same progression, the same religion.

I don't really want to get into a big argument about this, but I always understood the Gita this way: Krishna is speaking of himself as Brahman; we don't necessarilly have to worship Krishna as long as we are devoted to Brahman in the purest essence we can imagine. The actual form we worship doesn't matter but the intention and understanding behind the worship does. The upanishads say that Brahman is the highest of the high and they also say that Brahman is without name or form, so why can only Krishna be Ishvara?

Oookay, I know many guys named Jesus... it is a very common hispanic name.

Might be true... but then again, might not be. All Hindus believe in the Vedas as the revealed Word of God (I think) and they share a common tradition of scripture and culture that springs from Vedic culture. Shiites and Sunnis have different scripture and beliefs but they are all still Muslims because of the Qur'an, right? The Vedas just seem to allow for a large area of freedom in worship and belief.

I don't want to sound dramatic or weird, but since I started reading Loving Ganesha, I feel as though I am falling in love with Him. I feel as though all this time when I pray it has been Him calling me to pray, and every time I am frustrated it is He that guides me back to understanding and calm. But at the same time I am afraid to start worshipping Him... consciously I see no difference between Ganesha and Shiva (I have read that in some scripture Shiva told people to worship Ganesha, and I have also read that Ganesha is the mind of Shiva in material form), I am also not sure whether it is okay to stop trying to worship Shiva for now and give into my desire to worship compassionate Ganesha. I also was wondering if it is okay to do puja without doing it perfectly... for instance I cannot find kumkum anywhere, so is it okay to not offer this? Should I just imagine myself offering it when that part of the puja comes or should I cut that part of the puja out completely? Thanks again for all your help, everyone!!

So do you believe we should trust entirely in the scriptures?

I have read that the caste system started out as a way of explaining duty. The duties of a priest are different from those of a merchant, etc. But then it became too strictly adhered to and Brahmins became an "elite" class that owned a lot of land and wealth, and they began oppressing the shudras. I've often wondered if the caste system was really such a bad thing. Every society automatically has a class system of some sort - today it is based mostly on wealth since we live in an increasingly global capitalist society, in other societies it can be based on power, birth, race, or whatever. Are any of these good? If the caste system was not bound strictly to birth, it might not be such a bad idea, since it would lay out the duties of every man's profession and a man who is simply a great craftsman and didn't have time to devote his full energy to religion would know what to do in that situation, and so on. I don't think it matters today though, since a capitalist society will always base its classes on wealth.

I don't think it is just Hindus that do this, nor do all Hindus necessarilly do this. Hindus may get caught up in cultural dogma and superstition just like anyone else and be unable to progress spiritually for those or other reasons. All spiritual traditions have a fantastic mystical tradition, and many of these mystics throughout time have said that experience of divinity is beyond all belief. St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa (Christianity), Rabia'h and Rumi (Islam) are just a few of these from spiritual traditions that are often not thought of as being compatible with that idea.

All I can find is Ganesha puja, but I will try to do this until I find Shiva puja... perhaps Ganesha will help me

Thanks to all for your answers. I will check himalayanacademy again more carefully. krishnadas, thanks for your understanding. God bless and keep you all.

I have visited and read much of the info on this site. I also own one of their books. But I haven't found any specific information on worship, just general rules like "do puja, japa and temple worship regularly."