I think of becoming a Hindu

[Samkhya]

Hi,

 

I think of becoming a hindu because as far as I know, I find in hinduism the solution to some problems concerning God. If God is all-good, why is there so much evil? Besides, some people claim that there are internal inconsistencies in the concept of God (shaped by Christianity).

 

I think that the answer may consist in distinguishing two aspects of God: a personal aspect, with known determinations, such as will, love and intelligence, and an impersonal aspect, beyond all determinations. What gives me this idea is the hindu distinction between saguna and nirguna Brahman.

 

Besides, it seems that there is some empirical support for the idea of reincarnation, but I don't know the affair very well.

 

As for the law of dharma, it may mean that there are objective criteria of morality. There are some things that are absolutely right and others that are absolutely wrong.

 

But I don't buy the jati system.

 

Can you help me make my thoughts clearer please?

[maadhav]

please read gita's 700 verses seriously and with faith.

you will get your answers.

 

what you call jati is malpracticed part by hindus.

varna (jati) per gita is by guna (qualities) and karma (actions), not by birth.

 

[Guest guest]

the jatu system is one that was corrupted over many thousands of years. whether it was set up originally as an ideal system is unknown, but the system as per the Gita is different from the one in practice.

 

the caste system as practiced is based on social status, money, influence, heredity, etc.

 

the caste system as idealized in the Gita is based on gunas, qualities of charachter. one of good charachter and personality is a brahmin while the opposite is sudra. Since one's personality shifts throughout one's lifetime, it is possible to change from brahmin to ksatriya to sudra throughout one life.

 

However, this is something that need not be measured. One cannot accurately judge others, so one shouldnt judge others. Therefore, how can we really KNOW what caste another person would be in?

 

the knowledge of the concept is important only so far as it helps us understand that those good people (brahmins) will do better in this life and the next that the bad people (sudras) or the ones in between (kshatriyas or vaishyas).

 

It doesnt mean that my Namboothiri (Brahmin) uncle will do better in life and in the next life than me a Kartha (Kshatriya) just because he is the son of a priest.

t

hats just absurd. I wish modern Hindus will get rid of this thining and understand the caste system as it should be.

 

 

is this the answer to your question?

[Samkhya]

Thank you to you and to maadhav for these explanations on jati.

 

I would like to know:

 

1) How hinduism faces the problem of evil and whether his solution is more plausible than that of Christianity

 

2) Whether Brahman is the stuff out of which mundane things are made or It is distinct from the world as the Christian God is. I know that Hindus disagree on this matter (Advaitins against dvaitins). Where is the truth?

 

3) What the nature of the soul is

 

4) What Moksha consists of

 

Regards,

S

[Guest guest]

Before converting,You should read here:

 

http://www.hindu-religion.net/showflat/cat/hinduism/87250/0/collapsed/5/o/1

 

[ajit12]

dear Maadhav , pl.try and give truthful answers.the gunakarma in Gita is referring to the guna& karma in the previuos birth.The varna was always decided on birth.In BhagwatGita the verse, CHATURWRNA MAYA SRUSTI----- ETC. is denoting that thse four classes have been created by me[i.e. Bhagwan shrikrina] and does not denote that individuals will be assigned there warna based on the karma. There are several verses throughout vedic books about how a brahmin is always to be worshipped even if he is illerate.Manusmriti lays down that a 10 year old brahmin is more venerable than a knowledeble 100 year old khastriya.

This raises another practical difficulty i.e. who or what authority is going to assign these warnas ,at what age & how?. If you decide that a person is brahmin then at what age you decid and at what age hold the thread ceremony. No where in vedas,puranas or bhagwat any mention that any such warna determination was done with the sole exception of Satyakam Jabal. In his case because he admitted that his mother Jabali could not tell him whose son he was.

When we try to make arguments like warna was decided based upon [a] performance b]learning etc we forget the fact the society needs an organisation for that.

[Guest guest]

man,the best join Shaivaism,we dont practise these craps called jati...we belive everyone is same & Shiva's child.dun trust JATI!! its not sent by God,its created by humans just to show the difference & get the influence that time!

[Guest guest]

Well do you think the image of Shiva is how he really looks or is it a symbolic representation of an aspect of God?

 

Since when did Shaivites not believe in Jati (caste). I see Shaivites still marry within caste. And what Shaivite movement are you recommending to our guest...Saiva Siddhanta, Kashmiri Saivism or Virasaivism?

[Samkhya]

Hello all,

 

But after some reflections, I have come to the conclusion that reincarnation is not plausible. It's because there are cases when the new personality is born BEFORE the previous personality has died... This means that there is no soul which has gone from a body to another one. So-called cases of reincarnation can be explained by psychic powers.

 

But I am more interested in the vedantic approach to God. It is what I would like to keep of hinduism.

[maadhav]

jati or caste or varna is a social classification.

 

social clasifications exist in all the societies.

The names of each class is diffrent in different socities, but a society cannot function without social classifications.

 

What Krishna did as God in the beginning of creation is classifed people in four vedic classes: brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra. he tells in gita what ar the duties of these classes. The purpose of this was that all get equal oppertunity to realize god. This purpose is very unique of the Vedic society.

 

Then after one born in a class easily picked up the gunas and karma of his father. So, he was accepted as belonging to that class. Additionally, there was gurukula education system where one lived with a guru for 25 year and studied while remining a brahmachari. The guru, knowing the disciple for 25 years, would tell him what varna one is, and the student would identify belonging to that varna, and do his karma accordingly.

 

The past life's guna/karma do influence present life, but guna and karma of the present life are the measures to classify one's varna. This happens in all the socities.

 

when the vedic society deteriorated, where there was no qualifed brahmana, then the society began accepting sons of brahmanas as brahmanas, as there was need/demand for them.

 

In US, I have seen some acting as poojari/brahmana but have no guna and karna of a brahmana. They are just an oppertunitst/businessmen who grabbed the demand situation when there was no real brahmana available.

We need to push them to become true brahmana, or replace them with true brahmanas.

 

Hope this helps.

 

[Guest guest]

{But I am more interested in the vedantic approach to God. It is what I would like to keep of hinduism.}

 

I think Vedanta includes reincarnation as one of it's beliefs. What did you mean by vednatic approach to God? And going by your name, what's wrong with the Samkya philosophy?

 

{I have come to the conclusion that reincarnation is not plausible. It's because there are cases when the new personality is born BEFORE the previous personality has died... }

 

What are you talking about? How do you explain that? How does that mean no reincanration? Can you please elaborate further?

[Sephiroth]

It's because there are cases when the new personality is born BEFORE the previous personality has died...

 

I have NEVER come across such cases before. Mind showing me some of this case you say had existed?

 

I think you are tainted by Buddhist principles too much. Buddhism is tainted by atheists principles which deny Souls, Reincarnations and God.

[Samkhya]

""" I think Vedanta includes reincarnation as one of it's beliefs. """

 

And nevertheless, I read a book on the Vedanta saying that reincarnation (or perhaps karma) is not truly vedantic.

 

""" What did you mean by vednatic approach to God? """

 

It is how vedantins conceive God (or in whatever way you call the Absolute, Brahman, Ishvara, etc.), his nature and his relationship with the world. It is also important to say how God is involved in our lives.

 

""" What are you talking about? How do you explain that? How does that mean no reincanration? Can you please elaborate further? """

 

If really previous personality were not dead when the new personality is born, then it means that the soul associated with the previous personality could not have left his body with his memories and his psychological traits and gone into a new one. A soul is always the soul of ONE body. To say that there are two identical personalities alive means that the information from a person to the next was not transmitted by the passage of the soul. It was probably transmitted by extra-sensory perceptions.

 

You may object: but all that it proves is that SOME so-called cases of reincarnation are not genuine. I reply that the most reasonable (after the Ockham's razor) theory is the simplest. But it is simpler to explain ALL so-called cases of reincarnation in the same way. Otherwise, how can we distinguish the true cases from the false ones? We can't observe the soul leaving a body and going into another one.

 

You are still free to believe in reincarnation, but this belief is rationally groundless.

 

Regards

 

[Samkhya]

""" I have NEVER come across such cases before. Mind showing me some of this case you say had existed? """

 

I have only read that such cases exist in a journal of psychical research. The author gave no more details, unfortunately. I can tell you where I found this information.

 

I have spoken of that to a scholar who has studied reincarnation, and he has not heard of it either.

 

""" I think you are tainted by Buddhist principles too much. Buddhism is tainted by atheists principles which deny Souls, Reincarnations and God."""

 

It depends on which buddhism you are speaking of... Personally I feel more at ease with souls and God. However, I worry about whether these beliefs are grounded on evidence.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your reply. I can honestly say that I still did not understand what you were saying.

 

{If really previous personality were not dead when the new personality is born, then it means that the soul associated with the previous personality could not have left his body with his memories and his psychological traits and gone into a new one.}

 

I thought when a person dies, there is a period of time before it re-incarnates. A soul doesn't re-incarnate straight away. I wonder how the theory of reincarnation got accepted in Hinduism? from what I've heard advanced yogis remembered experiences from their previous lives. Even the Buddha could remember his previous lives.

 

{It is how vedantins conceive God (or in whatever way you call the Absolute, Brahman, Ishvara, etc.), his nature and his relationship with the world. It is also important to say how God is involved in our lives.}

 

I like the fact that there were many sages of the upanishads came to the same conclusions. But didn't they discuss reincarnation in the Upanishads? I think you may find the Nyaya and yoga philosophies interesting.

 

 

[vayu]

I think what you are calling reincarnation would be better defined as rebirth. My understanding is you are reborn according to your karma. What level of being you will be reborn as depends on your karmic debt. You are not "reincarnated" in another body as the "same" person. That is my understanding. But what do I know? I just wanted to put my two cents in to see if it made sense to anyone. Peace!

Jai Swaminarayan

[Sephiroth]

Reincarnation is Hindusm term.

Rebirth is Buddhism term.

Both don't mean the same thing.

 

When you say you reincarnate, it means your soul passed from one body and goes into a new one. Like (as described in Gita), a person removes an old clothes when it had been worn and wears a new one.

 

When you say you had underwent rebirth, it means your body is renewed and the path of Karma it follows is depends on the path another body had done in its pervious existence.

 

Buddhism don't believe in Souls. They believe that each person inherit karma of another as they move forward in life.

 

For example, I get angry for something and you came to see me. I lashed out and slapped you in the face for no apparent reason and then apologize. Even so I apologized, you may still hold the grudge in your heart and that will cause anger. You will go to another person and lash out at him/her because of your anger toward me and the circle will continue in such way.

[vayu]

Reincarnation, punarjanma, is the natural process of birth, death and rebirth. At death we drop off the physical body and continue evolving in the inner worlds in our subtle bodies, until we again enter into birth. AUM

Jai Swaminarayan /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[vayu]

Because certain karmas can be resolved only in the physical world, we must enter another physical body to continue our evolution. After soaring into the casual plane, we enter a new womb. Subsequently the old manomaya kosha is slowly sloughed off and a new one created. The actions set in motion in previous lives form the tendencies and conditions of the next. Reincarnation ceases when karma is resolved, God is realized and moksha attained. The Vedas say, "After death, the soul goes to the next world bearing in mind the subtle impressions of it's deeds, and after reaping their harvest returns again into this world of action. Thus, he who has desires continues suject to rebirth." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sephiroth]

Anyway, to summarize the facts, Buddhism concentrate in NOW and HERE approach, pushing aside altogether the Spiritual aspects and concentrate in Living a proper Life.

 

Gautama Buddha knows that it is useless to talk about God, dieties, rituals and such. So, he pushed aside and concentrated in living alone. He taught his students on how to live a proper life.

 

To Gautama Buddha, he didn't speak of Souls, but the basic requirement for you to continue to suffer in form of rebirths. After all, if he said Souls exists, he MUST proof it.

 

However, Buddhist nowadays are going against such teaching. They proclaim that since Gautama Buddha never taught about God or Souls (he simply said nothing in THIS body will be carried forward to the next), it meant that God and Souls don't exists and many Atheists used this as basics for their own beliefs.

 

So, Hindus should not use both term Reincarnation and Rebirth together because the meaning is different.

[vayu]

Thanks for the reply Sephiroth.

I am not trying to case waves here. You seem to be quite the excitable type. I know I started this "debate" and I was wrong. Reincarnate, rebirth, these are just words. I guess it depends on where you are from because different people/cultures have different meanings for these words. I am familiar with the Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path and the teachings of the buddha. That is one reason I kind of distanced myself from "Buddhism" because everyone argued about who was better Mahayana or Viyana or Vajrayana or Zen or Pure Land and so on and they would pick, pick, pick about details and terms and it all has it's place but sometimes it became quite ridiculous! It seems crazy because it seemed far away from what the buddha taught.

You seem to be anti-buddhist, please correct me if I am wrong. We can discuss things in a peaceful intelligent manner. I don't mind a friendly debate here and there or to learn from others, that is what we are here for. Shanti!!!!

vayu /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Sephiroth]

That's a cute thing to say about someone. The yellow strings which I got from Buddhist monks and wore around my right hand feels funny.

 

It seems crazy because it seemed far away from what the buddha taught.

 

YES, you are quite correct in your statement that Buddhism which exist today is very different from what Gautama Buddha taught.

 

You may ask why. Answer is because the Sutras which exists today, which Buddhists hold on to as words of Buddha, is actually written by His students after His departure from this world. That is why He had instructed all the followers of His beliefs to keep an open-mind.

 

Unfortunately, the opposite happens ... then again, no one said Humans are good at following the Divine intruction. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Atheism quality sweep into Buddhism, especially in late 1960s - 1970s when the Westerners found Buddhism and many of them associate Atheism to Buddhism and define it according to their understandings.

 

Pureland Buddha for example - strong in China, Korea and H.K teachs the followers to have target of been reborn in the Pureland of Buddha. Gautama Buddha never taught such beliefs of been reborn anywhere.

 

Zen Buddhism is created from Shintosm and Buddhism and can be said it is a bit dangerous from others. There's even a cult followers in Japan where the followers use fasting and using chemicals and other means to slowly starve themselves and become mummies.

 

Anyway, if you want to talk about Buddhism, just open a thread. I'm hope the Admin don't mind since Buddhism also comes from India.

 

As for the term Reincarnation and Rebirth, one should be careful with both. It's meaning is different and you should be careful on using both meaning properly.

[Guest guest]

{Gautama Buddha knows that it is useless to talk about God, dieties, rituals and such. So, he pushed aside and concentrated in living alone.}

 

Buddha lived in the Vedantic age where rituals and personal gods were being criticised by the sages. So he adopted this approach. It also should be pointed out that Mahavir the founder of Jainism lived slightly before him had some influence in this change. Buddhism is not atheistic and more agnostic, but non-theistic is a beetter term in that it doesn't talk about God.

 

{However, Buddhist nowadays are going against such teaching. They proclaim that since Gautama Buddha never taught about God or Souls (he simply said nothing in THIS body will be carried forward to the next), it meant that God and Souls don't exists and many Atheists used this as basics for their own beliefs.}

 

I think they are doing this to distinguish themselves further apart from Hinduism as some Hindu groups such as the Ramakrishna mission, have the bad habit of trying to 'absorb' every other religion rather than letting them exist in their own right. I think Buddha was a very radical sage in his time and only taught what he experienced which lead him to form a new school based on his experiences. He didn't copy what other Hindu sages experienced in his time, since he never experienced them himself. It's important to remember that Buddha didn't search for God, he searched for enlightenment.