How can Hindu belief of Life/Karma resolve the social issues i.e. attitude.

[pinaki]

Its amazing how the Hindu society in India encapsulates millions of minds with a strong faith of existence in both spiritual and material contexts but apparently overlooks or trenches itself from resolving the social issues of negative attitude arising from frustration among the souls. Such a vast population and hundreds of tangible and intangible parameters that influence our lives .. and in a way defines subtely our rules of engagement in different routine or unexpected wars while walking through life. The interesting aspect that I have experienced again and again among a typical Indian soul which has experienced from the long run (I mean a old person like grand father or aged father or mother) is their utterly strong inclination towards beliefs and faith without a liberal mind of rational. I may sound somewhat skewed towards generalizing the fact, but in a population of 1 Bil there have been ample examples that made me believe that it has something to do with the rigidity of our faith or somekind of hipocrisy during the inherent perception in one's mind. I believe that a faith which is based on strong fundamental elements of trust, honesty, truth, sincerety, diversity, and appreciation for worldly views and which tries to resolve both spiritual and materialistic matters in light of the reasoning has more to offer than just blind justification of one's belief. I am a young soul with millions more to witness in life, but what intrigues me is that why old people with such a vast knowledge and experience from life tends to culminate every reasoning to the context of "rules as they have been". Why do we just falter in asking the question to ourselves - "Why is it so? and why it has to be my way? Is there a better way?" Is it somekind of complacancy or superiority complex that develops from age?

 

One example might be the oldest family member makes a rule in the house for everyone to return before 9:00 pm by the day's end. Any reasoning against that might lead to a severe altercation or contention without a proper debate and reasoning.

 

Thats what sometimes frustrates me - why our religion and our socio-religious doctrines of life fails to answer this? And above and all, why is there such a small room to challenge our own thoughts or beliefs? Change has always been threatening to establishments. But how come a fundamental religion like Hinduism cant appreciate change by reasoning and still be robust in its practice with the wheels of time.

 

Will appreciate some thoughts.

 

 

 

[Gauracandra]

I'm not sure I can fully answer your question. Still, part of me has always believed that "Eastern" religions that deal so much in mysticism, fail on a practical level to address the concerns of regular folks. In this respect I think Christianity is more successful. Some people will disagree with me, but to me the Bible is very cut and dry. There are to dos and to don'ts. It is all about morality, and how to base ones life. But there is very little mystical in it. If you watch the average Christian minister preach, it is all about day to day life and struggles. How to be honest, How to have a successful marriage, How to raise wholesome kids, community activities, fundraisers for a cause.... Some take it so far, that they seem to present the Bible as basically a "Self-Help" book, with Jesus as an ancient Tony Robbins. Jesus wants you to be financially successful. Jesus wants you to live up to your potential. Jesus wants you to have a successful marriage....

 

On the other hand, some people will look down on 'mere morality' and seek the more esoteric. But I think for most people they will simply respond with "Give me something I can use". And thats where a large part of the failure comes in I believe.

 

One person who seems to understand this is Siddhaswarupananda. I've been posting summaries of his television program (though I've missed the last few weeks due to work). He deals almost entirely in practical presentations. He will take a headline from the news, or some event, or situation, and explain it in a very straight forward manner. He doesn't talk about the jiva, he talks about the soul. He doesn't quote sanskrit, he gives the verses in english. I for one found this approach refreshing.

 

Anyone else want to take a stab at this question?

 

Gauracandra

[suryaz]

I believe it has more to do with the Hindu world-view - caste system influences. The caste system takes its origin in the Purusha-sukta (Rg Veda). Vedicism has a history of reform towards the end of the Upanishad period (800 BC) when in Orthodox Brahmanism there occurred a shift away from yajan and jnana and more towards the notion of dharma as found in the Manu-samita.

 

Since then in Brahminism as with Hinduism a person is firstly part of the Varata –purusha (and viewed firstly in terms of one's position in the caste system - dharma). For the benefit of society one must perform one’s duty (dharma) as Jagat-purusha intended, and as designed by him in correlation to one’s karma.

 

Although since Gandhi’s influences the caste system has been made obsolete in India it is still built into the psyche of its Hindu inhabitants (in terms of primary socialisation). Hindu’s generally do not encourage each other (off-spring) to invent new ways of creative living – rather one is enculturated to continue with tried and proven ways of socialisation as given in custom, tradition and scriptures (Rg Veda’s views mentioned above about Virata-purusha and Laws of Manu). In other words in Indian Hinduism the individual is socialised as a member of a pre-ordained social network with distinct parameters. As such a person from the time of birth pretty much knows his/her duty within the family, society and community to which he/she is born

 

On the other hand in Western society (western socialisation) the individual as Sartre would put it is expected to “create his/her own destiny”. The individual is to decide which occupation he/she wants to peruse and is encouraged through both primary and secondary forms of socialisation to do so. The individual is encouraged to try-out and test new hypothesis and bring about newer and more modified results for the benefit of not only the self but society as well (whereby these modifications may at any time transcend previously accepted socially accepted notions and practices).

 

Having said the above I believe it is the lack of modification to the changing natural and environmental conditions that have some affect (as with the desire to continue with cultural or religious notions that are out of kilter with the type of society India is today) that influence the social climate as it appears in India today.

 

In short: in Western society’s system of socialisation one is expected to modify one’s approach and practices in a world of changing natural and social conditions. In India one is encouraged to fit into a preordained system in a world that is in motion and thus changes.

 

Our world is a world in motion

And one small change creates many other changes

The social world in particular is ever changing

The trouble is some societies what to hang on to the past as perfect in a world of change

In so doing is not a fallacy created???

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-07-2001).]

[pinaki]

Thanks guys for ideas and thoughts..

 

Lately I have purposefully involved myself into debates about the viability and the legitimacy of the fact that RELIGIONS WHICH ORIGINATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS BACK CAN JUSTIFY THE DYNAMIC GLOBAL CHANGES IN ONE'S LIFE AND PERCEPTIONS IN THE CURRENT SITUATION. Thats quite intriguing if we just ponder over the idea of a dynamic religious concept that fits itself with the requirements and the challenges of not only current day-to-day lives but also the implications and ramifications of one's actions in other's life. I percieved that religion and its concepts should be like a fluid sphere trying to fill itself in any hole .. but sometimes (or most of the time) it acts like a square with sharp corners. Whenever I start talking about this, end up pulling up a socio-religious and a socio-political twist to my presentations. From a layman's perspective it is a quite formidable challenge to maintain a standpoint without being snubbed by some agent (humans ofcourse) when he/she communicates with millions around him/her. This eventually may frsutrate him/her. Amazingly these feedbacks define his daily life and that what he clings on to as a doctrine of life. An average Indian going through the hardship of everyday hardly asks his religion every hour WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS?... and I think it goes for all humans in general. But the interesting part is, if he or she faces a threat to his own actions, then tries to defend that with social norms derived from hinduism or ancient social and religious sayings and scriptures. How Hypocritical..!!!.. So here the religion or faith in a way is failing to resolve the cause and trying to defend the effect. Well, religion by itself never tries to do anything, but the people who practices it proposes and imposes. Then the point arises:

 

 

 

CURRENT HINDU RELIGIOUS CONCEPT/FAITH HAS GOT ITS HEAD IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE TAIL IN THE 15TH CENTURY

</P>

 

May be I am being too harsh.. or am I?

 

 

[valaya]

This link might be of some help. It's for a book by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Thanks be to gHari.

 

http://www.sanskrit.org/summary.html

[suryaz]

Originally posted by pinaki:

CURRENT HINDU RELIGIOUS CONCEPT/FAITH HAS GOT ITS HEAD IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE TAIL IN THE 15TH CENTURY

</P>

 

May be I am being too harsh.. or am I?

 

 

its tail as with its 'spinal nerve chord' in 1500 - 800 BC is more like it

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-07-2001).]

[pinaki]

oops suryaz.. that was a severe mistake on my behalf ... yes.. thanks for the clarification

[Bhaktavasya]

 

Joining in here, may I say that the glaring ommission of the relevance of Buddha as one of the major avatars of Vishnu in orthodox Hindhuism (Krishna Himself coming to say "Forget about worshipping me, find a way to end the suffering of all sentient beings.") is part of the problem. It isn't as if the Manu Samita wasn't around during the time of Lord Buddha. Before the Manu Samhita, an 'essence' teaching of Srimad Bhagwatam is not to cause pain to any living entity. Buddha took it a notch further, extolling his followers to work selflessly for the end of all suffering (thus the vow of the Boddhisattva, akin to the desire of

Vasudeva Datta, as expressed to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Basically, that he undergo the karma of all the entangled, destined to forever suffer souls, so that they could all go back to Godhead. A long shot, but it made Chaitanya cry, so it wasn't all for naught. Not only that, but if we recall, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that because of the desire of Vasudev Datta, all the conditioned souls are already delivered. Just a matter of time, I guess.

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by pinaki:

RELIGIONS WHICH ORIGINATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS BACK CAN JUSTIFY THE DYNAMIC GLOBAL CHANGES IN ONE'S LIFE AND PERCEPTIONS IN THE CURRENT SITUATION. B]

"RELIGIONS"

 

The best sociological definition of “religion” I have found is as follows:

 

Religion is a set of symbols that act to constitute a powerful pervasive and long lasting mood. It motivates one by forming conception of the universal order, and clothes those conception with an aura of felicity so that mood and motivation seem uniquely realistic (Geertz)

 

Of

"WHICH ORIGINATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS BACK CAN JUSTIFY THE DYNAMIC GLOBAL CHANGES IN ONE'S LIFE AND PERCEPTIONS IN THE CURRENT SITUATION. "

 

If arguing from the sociological perspective I would argue primarily against the above

 

As mentioned previously:

Our world is a work in motion and one small change can create many other changes. Each needs to be dealt with within it own context of analysis.

 

However that is not to say religious belief cannot act with psychological benefit for its practitioners

 

Remember in sociology, religion does not hold any special position of sacredness.

 

That is to say it is not treated with special status above and beyond any other sociological phenomenon.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-08-2001).]

[suryaz]

To Pinaki

 

http://www.sosig.ac.uk/roads/subject-listing/World-cat/sociol.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

” Religion is a set of symbols that act to constitute a powerful pervasive and long lasting mood. It motivates one by forming conception of the universal order, and clothes those conception with an aura of felicity so that mood and motivation seem uniquely realistic.” (Geertz)

 

Just imagine an old religious system where the masses don’t have birth or money to help themselves. Where their houses are not weather proof, and they don’t have the opportunity to build better housing themselves. Where they aren’t given even the proper access to clean drinking water. Instead, the wells of the villages were strictly segregated between the high and low born . Unproductive fields and bad land are given to the lower castes, and even this was passed off as "charity." Only second grade food was ever given to them and their health was seen as not the concern of the high browned members of the society.

 

Where low class people are refused to even learn the very hymns that may allow them access to their Gods, for fear of polluting the scriptures and Gods. If a God can be polluted by being spoken of by a low born, how can that God uplift someone? Why should a person of low birth want to keep faith with a God and a religion that had no faith in him? Apart from food, water and education, this old religion also failed to help them realize their spiritual aspirations.

 

Why than should these people stay faithful to an old religious system who have not helped them ? If a new group of people came and promised to help them come out of the quagmire of social ills, why shouldn't they take up this opportunity? With a new name, new surname and a new religion, they can find a whole new world opens up for them. When you are offered better life in this life, rather than hereafter, why not convert ?

 

 

[Caitanyachandra]

Pinaki

CURRENT HINDU RELIGIOUS CONCEPT/FAITH HAS GOT ITS HEAD IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE TAIL IN THE 15TH CENTURY

Instead you have your head in your Butbutbut and your tail in the hAND AND head.

 

SHAMU.

 

[This message has been edited by Caitanyachandra (edited 11-08-2001).]

[Caitanyachandra]

As to why elders or a group of people would continue projecting ancient beliefs is not very complicated. That is what they believe as reality. As for applying logic and reason to this matter, they do not do that since they are in the process of doing the appropriate thing.

 

Personally, where there is massive poverty in the one of the wealthiest and the most prolific nation on Bharatvarsh is seminal in someone's established prerogative.

 

The skew in perceptive analysis is a cultural and economic purpose not a objective standard in judgement.

 

BEST REGARDS,

 

AJAY SHAH.

 

[This message has been edited by Caitanyachandra (edited 11-08-2001).]

[Caitanyachandra]

"But how come a fundamental religion like Hinduism cant appreciate change by reasoning and still be robust in its practice with the wheels of time."

 

I assure you that change by reasoning is by Hindus' for many an associative conceit.

 

HAs most I know about the histiorama of Indian religion and debate, it starts with the middle class. The feedback loop then turns to the HIGH CLASS Brahmins. Who filter through the bullshit and the nectar. Applying sastric analysis, debating strategies, or perceptual thinking in they're total efforts to hand out agenda for the legendary civilization.

 

SINCERELY<BHAKTA AJAY SHAH>

[pinaki]

From the Upanishads.. some brain storming while surfing for the context of EGO of oneself and how that has been explained.

There are two selves, the separate ego and the indivisible Atman. When one rises above I and me and mine, the Atman is revealed as one's real Self.

(Katha Up. Part 2, 3:13, p. 97)

 

 

 

Like two golden birds perched on the selfsame tree, intimate friends, the ego and the Self dwell in the same body. The former eats the sweet and sour fruits of the tree of life while the latter looks on in detachment. As long as we think we are the ego, we feel attached and fall into sorrow. But realize that you are the Self, the Lord of life, and you will be freed from sorrow. When you realize that you are the Self, supreme source of light, supreme source of love, you transcend the duality of life and enter into the unitive state.

(Mundada Up. 3:1-3, p. 115; also compare Shvetashvatara Up. 4:6, p. 225)

 

 

 

When identified with the ego, the Self appears other than what it is. It may appear smaller than a hair's breadth. But know the Self to be infinite.

(Shvetashvatara Up. 5:8-9, p. 229)

 

 

 

 

Now let me try to crashland onto reality in todays context of Indian society. Starting all the way from the politicians and statesmen, to a mere farmer in some remote village in the deepest corner of our country - showing off ego, taking things in charge to establish his/her views by impulse, justifying one's actions and refraining from contemplating the implications are shameless examples of our inherited culture and social upbringing. Upbringing in the context of current environment. With such a long history of our religion, society, heritage.. can we ignore the impact of our history of people?.. the history that defined our present behaviour of pompous, hypocritical, impatient, and non appreciation. And then if religion or the practice of religion has been holding us together through the chains of time.. arent these chains turned into shackles under the preposterous explanations and justifications of Hinduism?.. I wonder sometimes, why are we so insecured in our perceptions of anything...? Going back to the Upanishad's explanation of EGO.. it seems we are way off from even the earliest interpretation of the real fundamentals of human nature. what a waste in between .. around 5000 years !!

 

[gHari]

Yes, all around they dance their illusion, mesmerizing me with their glittering ways. Can I have some respect and adoration too?

 

As I sit in my cave on this little planet spinning around amongst billions and billions of others, I watch the ones who cannot see beyond the pavement and light posts, trying to find some enjoyment in such a tiny world, afraid to look up at the baffling complexities.

 

But I am. And He is. Or actually, He is and I am, but how wonderful that is, just knowing. Just being is so wonderful that no matter how many other things I add, it could never increase my delight. One can empty a whole lake into the ocean and never perceive a difference.

 

No, the wonder, the enjoyment is only the result of existing. I cannot add upon it. Only if I forget my ocean of pleasure, can I suppose that this or that or those or some more will make me happier. So sad must I be to clamber after such lies.

 

If only we could see our great fortune through God's eyes.