Opinions on Hinduism (various schools/forms)

[ComradeMan]

I have always been interested in Vedic religions and primarily Hinduism (by this I mean the various schools and philosophies that constitute "Hinduism").

The Vedic religions and philosophies always strike me as enigmatic. On the one hand there seems to be such a more harmonious way to deal with issues surrounding life and death, tolerance of other beliefs (not Hindu Nationalists) and perhaps, "heresies". On the other hand there is the darker side too, the caste system, the discrimination and the some of the positively strange stuff that goes on.

What are your opinions on Vedic religions and Hinduism in general?

[Koba1917]

Hinduism promotes a caste system which is a smack in the face to human kind. You are
"born" into your class and can't get out of it. But I guess some of the teachings are alright.

[ComradeMan]

Hinduism promotes a caste system which is a smack in the face to human kind. You are
"born" into your class and can't get out of it. But I guess some of the teachings are alright.

Which ones?

[manic expression]

The caste system isn´t intertwined with Hinduism...definitely not in the modern conception. The Vedic "caste system" wasn´t hereditary...you came into a caste through a sort of early apprenticeship, and your kids could easily get into a different caste a generation later. The caste system became what we know it as today over time, and relatively recently at that. The most accessible evidence of this is how Hinduism has evolved in surroundings outside of India. Mandirs in the US, for instance, won´t care if "Mlechhas" show up and pray there. When it comes to social outlook, Hinduism, like most religions, has far, far more to do with the class society it exists in than anything else.

[RedSunRising]

I wish Red Cat hadnt been banned. He could have explained everything.

[Koba1917]

Which ones?

The nice ones :laugh:

No, but some of the teachings with peace and what not.

[Nehru]

I wish Red Cat hadnt been banned. He could have explained everything.

I don't think he's banned.

[Nehru]

The caste system isn´t intertwined with Hinduism...definitely not in the modern conception. The Vedic "caste system" wasn´t hereditary...you came into a caste through a sort of early apprenticeship, and your kids could easily get into a different caste a generation later. The caste system became what we know it as today over time, and relatively recently at that. The most accessible evidence of this is how Hinduism has evolved in surroundings outside of India. Mandirs in the US, for instance, won´t care if "Mlechhas" show up and pray there. When it comes to social outlook, Hinduism, like most religions, has far, far more to do with the class society it exists in than anything else.

Are you sure? Caste system is an integral part of Hinduism, which is why Buddha had to rebel against it.

[L.A.P.]

Well I come from a Hindu family so I'll try to give as much insight as I can which isn't much. The caste system wasn't actually a part of Hinduism until the Persian Empire occupied India. Persian and Indian culture has had a history of mixing and merging together as the Persians culturally influenced India and Persia borrowed many parts of Indian culture as well. You will notice that many Indians in the higher castes are much lighter skinned than the lower castes are made up of darker skin. Well Indians that were part-Persian or Persian settlers in India had much lighter skin than the dark-skinned Indian population. And just like any empire, thought that their "blood" was inherently superior to the people they ruled over. As a result, the class society was modeled in a way that had the more Persian people (who were light-skinned) above the "pure-blood" Indians. The caste system was actually implemented into Hindu dogma by the Persian Empire and naturally had it made in a way that favored the ruling class that was made up of Persians. This class system has become integrated into the culture still majorly affecting Indian society. I wouldn't be surprised that if a gene test were to show that most of the Bollywood elite had more Persian in them than Indian. I find this pretty interesting to find out because I come from a very wealthy higher caste Indian family and love to tell them "we're more Iranian than Indian!" whenever they act all nationalistic.

[Revolution starts with U]

The stories are interesting. Yoga is cool.
But the caste system and all that...

[manic expression]

Are you sure? Caste system is an integral part of Hinduism, which is why Buddha had to rebel against it.
100% sure. Buddha wasn't just going against the caste system, although that was part of it, but most importantly he and his followers were reacting to what Hinduism had become at that point. At any rate, it's not like Ashoka, a Buddhist ruler, got rid of the caste system.

And like I said, much Hinduism outside of India/Bali is very disinterested in caste (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401741). This demonstrates a very important fact: The caste system is a result of class and social dynamics, not of religion, which is why the caste system is almost the complete opposite of what it was in the Vedic era and why caste is constantly changing as we type. Hinduism in India, as always, will change as India changes; a classless Hinduism can only be achieved by a classless society.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well I come from a Hindu family so I'll try to give as much insight as I can which isn't much. The caste system wasn't actually a part of Hinduism until the Persian Empire occupied India. Persian and Indian culture has had a history of mixing and merging together as the Persians culturally influenced India and Persia borrowed many parts of Indian culture as well. You will notice that many Indians in the higher castes are much lighter skinned than the lower castes are made up of darker skin. Well Indians that were part-Persian or Persian settlers in India had much lighter skin than the dark-skinned Indian population. And just like any empire, thought that their "blood" was inherently superior to the people they ruled over. As a result, the class society was modeled in a way that had the more Persian people (who were light-skinned) above the "pure-blood" Indians. The caste system was actually implemented into Hindu dogma by the Persian Empire and naturally had it made in a way that favored the ruling class that was made up of Persians. This class system has become integrated into the culture still majorly affecting Indian society. I wouldn't be surprised that if a gene test were to show that most of the Bollywood elite had more Persian in them than Indian. I find this pretty interesting to find out because I come from a very wealthy higher caste Indian family and love to tell them "we're more Iranian than Indian!" whenever they act all nationalistic.

This is true to some extent. In fact the word "Aryan" is related to the word "Iran".

There are some Persian blood in the ancient Chinese too, but much less in quantity (mainly through trade along the Silk Road) and geopolitically China and Persia had a more or less equal relationship, not a relationship of "conqueror and conquered" as in the case of Persia and India.

[RedSunRising]

I don't think he's banned.

He is.

He asked to be banned before they banned him.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hinduism is more diverse than any of the other major religions in terms of scriptures, rituals, etc so it's harder to make categorical statements.

The caste system is involved with the religion, although not every Hindu embraces the caste system and many non-Hindus in India do embrace it. There are many Hindu scriptures like the texts of Manu that openly support it, but not all take every scripture so seriously. Many Hindu reformers came and argued against the caste system. It does seem like the social power of the Aryans contributed to the rise of caste in India, while Hindus themselves worship gods who are pre-Aryan and constantly saw struggles to either strengthen or weaken the caste system. So it's not like the religion is entirely created a conspiracy of Aryan invaders to repress the locals, but is probably more of a synthesis between locals and newcomers to India

There are also some very interesting ideas in the philosophy which go unrecognized. Most people just focus on the caste system as if that is all Hinduism consists of. For instance, even though the caste system is important to many Hindus, at their core the religious texts also proclaim that social distinctions between groups are illusions. Also their mythology gives an interesting contrast with Greek and Judeo-Christian mythology which permeates "classical" European culture.

The main worry, like with most modern religions, lies not with the majority of the community but with rightwing Hindus, who blame Muslims and Christians for the poverty and weakness of their country and take their resentment out on those communities, as well as gays, liberal women, and others who do not fit their very closed "Hindutva" worldview.

[ComradeMan]

...

That's interesting because most early Indo-European societies seem to have had a kind of caste system- roughly divided into kings/warriors, priests, artisans and "others"- i.e. those who laboured in the fields almost like "helots" and were also slave owning. Parallels can be found a lot with the so-called "Celtic" societies as well as with the Romans.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's interesting because most early Indo-European societies seem to have had a kind of caste system- roughly divided into kings/warriors, priests, artisans and "others"- i.e. those who laboured in the fields almost like "helots" and were also slave owning. Parallels can be found a lot with the so-called "Celtic" societies as well as with the Romans.

Most early class societies had some kind of "caste system", not just "Indo-European" ones. There is nothing intrinsically special about the "Indo-Europeans" in a socio-economic sense just on the basis of their linguistic connections alone.

[ComradeMan]

Most early class societies had some kind of "caste system", not just "Indo-European" ones. There is nothing intrinsically special about the "Indo-Europeans" in a socio-economic sense just on the basis of their linguistic connections alone.

No one was saying that- so why do you have to jump on the anti-(Indo)-European thing instantly?

Considering that this thread is discussing Hinduism and Vedic religions that ultimately have their origin in an Indo-European religious and cultural context then it is intrinsically special. Caste systems should not be confused with class systems either and in the case of the Indo-European examples cited we are talking within the same tribal groups as opposed to inter-ethnic systems as were found in the Northern and Southern Dynasties in China.

[Nox]

Don't know too much about it, the caste system is exactly the sort of thing we communists fight against, but I guess as a whole Hinduism isnt as bad as Christianity or Islam

[Queercommie Girl]

No one was saying that- so why do you have to jump on the anti-(Indo)-European thing instantly?


Just pointing a fact out. How is it "anti-Indo-European" when I'm simply pointing out Indo-European cultures aren't the only ones to have an intra-ethnic caste system? :rolleyes:

Why do you get so sensitive regarding comments on "European culture"? I only see this level of sensitivity from right-wingers in Europe, to be honest.



Considering that this thread is discussing Hinduism and Vedic religions that ultimately have their origin in an Indo-European religious and cultural context then it is intrinsically special. Caste systems should not be confused with class systems either and in the case of the Indo-European examples cited we are talking within the same tribal groups as opposed to inter-ethnic systems as were found in the Northern and Southern Dynasties in China.

Indo-European cultures aren't the only ones to have an intra-ethnic caste system either. There was also a intra-ethnic caste system in feudal Han Chinese culture: shi, nong, gong, shang - scholar, farmer, artisan, merchant.

Also, the Northern and Southern Dynasties didn't actually have an explicit inter-ethnic caste system, it was the Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing Dynasties that had an explicit caste system.

[ComradeMan]

Just pointing a fact out. How is it "anti-Indo-European" when I'm simply pointing out Indo-European cultures aren't the only ones to have an intra-ethnic caste system? :rolleyes:

Which was completely irrelevant to the discussion and your snarky "nothing intrinsically special" comment said it all- no one was arguing for something "intrinsically special"- but rather drawing a comparison between the various ancient Indo-Europeans groups. Added to which your arrogant highlighting of linguistic affiliation, which I presume most people here are already aware of, further alludes to your sentiments.


Why do you get so sensitive regarding comments on "European culture"? I only see this level of sensitivity from right-wingers in Europe, to be honest.

Because you talk shit and in a discussion about anything to do with the a) Abrahamic religions b) Western Judaeo-Christian and thereafter culture- there always seems to flow a stream of negativity and pointing out stuff connected to China- even when, in this discussion and as interesting a subject as China is, it has nothing to do with the discussion really.


Indo-European cultures aren't the only ones to have an intra-ethnic caste system either. There was also a intra-ethnic caste system in feudal Han Chinese culture: shi, nong, gong, shang - scholar, farmer, artisan, merchant.

But quite frankly in terms of this thread it isn't really important ot "intrinsically special" because we were talking about Hinduism/Vedic religion and a link to Indo-European culture and religion.:laugh:


Also, the Northern and Southern Dynasties didn't actually have an explicit inter-ethnic caste system, it was the Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing Dynasties that had an explicit caste system.

Since when is China and Chinese in terms of the discussion of the history of China synonymous with Han? Clever bit of sinocentric semantics here- on that basis the English could argue that the feudal system is not part of "English" history seeing as it was introduced by the "foreign" Normans. :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

Which was completely irrelevant to the discussion and your snarky "nothing intrinsically special" comment said it all- no one was arguing for something "intrinsically special"- but rather drawing a comparison between the various ancient Indo-Europeans groups. Added to which your arrogant highlighting of linguistic affiliation, which I presume most people here are already aware of, further alludes to your sentiments.


There is nothing arrogant about simply pointing out objective facts, e.g. with respect to "linguistic affiliation".



Because you talk shit and in a discussion about anything to do with the a) Abrahamic religions b) Western Judaeo-Christian and thereafter culture- there always seems to flow a stream of negativity and pointing out stuff connected to China- even when, in this discussion and as interesting a subject as China is, it has nothing to do with the discussion really.


I didn't bring up China initially actually, and in the other thread I think I did say that the Jesuit-Confucian exchanges were partly positive for all involved, so you are misrepresenting me when you try to claim that I always try to "talk shit" when it comes to "Western culture".

On the other hand, I guess I could say that you are implicitly Sinophobic, because whenever you mention China, it's always in a negative context, whether it's Tibet or saying how backward China is compared with Europe.



Since when is China and Chinese in terms of the discussion of the history of China synonymous with Han? Clever bit of sinocentric semantics here- on that basis the English could argue that the feudal system is not part of "English" history seeing as it was introduced by the "foreign" Normans. :rolleyes:

The non-Han ethnicities during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, such as the Xianbei, did not have any kind of explicit inter-ethnic caste system either, so your whole point here is completely moot.

[ComradeMan]

There is nothing arrogant about simply pointing out objective facts, e.g. with respect to "linguistic affiliation".

Disingenuous.


I didn't bring up China initially actually, and in the other thread I think I did say that the Jesuit-Confucian exchanges were partly positive for all involved, so you are misrepresenting me when you try to claim that I always try to "talk shit" when it comes to "Western culture".

Check which thread we are in.



On the other hand, I guess I could say that you are implicitly Sinophobic, because whenever you mention China, it's always in a negative context, whether it's Tibet or saying how backward China is compared with Europe.

Where have I ever said China is/was backward other than to point out the academically accepted fact of the Great Stagnation of Chinese technological and scientific development which is generally agreed upon by most scholars and specialist academics?

As for Tibet- :laugh: I suppose it's a bit like accusing someone for being anti-semitic for criticising Israel, isn't it? It's sinophobic now not to accept the bullshit situation with Tibet.


The non-Han ethnicities during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, such as the Xianbei, did not have any kind of explicit inter-ethnic caste system either, so your whole point here is completely moot.

So?

... more recently...

"Traditional Yi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_people) society in Yunnan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunnan) was class based. People were split into the Black Yi (nobles, 5% of the population), White Yi (commoners), Ajia (33% of the Yi population) and the Xiaxi (10%). Ajia and Xiaxi were slaves. The White Yi were not slaves but had no freedom of movement. The Black Yi made slave-raids on Han Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) communities. After 1959, some 700,000 slaves were freed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste#China

[Queercommie Girl]

Check which thread we are in.


Only after Franz accused me for being "sino-centric".



Where have I ever said China is/was backward other than to point out the academically accepted fact of the Great Stagnation of Chinese technological and scientific development which is generally agreed upon by most scholars and specialist academics?


I don't think I ever disputed the fact that China fell behind in science and technology in the last 5 centuries or so.



As for Tibet- :laugh: I suppose it's a bit like accusing someone for being anti-semitic for criticising Israel, isn't it? It's sinophobic now not to accept the bullshit situation with Tibet.


I never said the situation in Tibet right now is good at all, but frankly it's quite one-sided to solely focus on this, what about the relative social and scientific progress that was brought to Tibet during the Maoist era, albeit certain distortions existed back then as well?



So?

... more recently...

"Traditional Yi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_people) society in Yunnan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunnan) was class based. People were split into the Black Yi (nobles, 5% of the population), White Yi (commoners), Ajia (33% of the Yi population) and the Xiaxi (10%). Ajia and Xiaxi were slaves. The White Yi were not slaves but had no freedom of movement. The Black Yi made slave-raids on Han Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) communities. After 1959, some 700,000 slaves were freed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste#China

So in that other Catholic thread you accused me for "changing to topic", but isn't that what you are doing here right now in this thread? I thought we were talking about the Northern and Southern Dynasties period, not modern times.

[ComradeMan]

Only after Franz accused me for being "sino-centric"..

Ah, so others have picked up on this tone of yours too.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ah, so others have picked up on this tone of yours too.

Well, one other. And they are either mistaken, or they've misunderstood my "tone", perhaps not due to their own faults. As I said I harbour no Sinocentric views.

I mean to be frank with you, if I were a real Sinocentrist, I wouldn't even be a Marxist. Many Chinese nationalists actually consider Maoist China to be "China under Soviet colonisation".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hm, I think both of you have interesting things to say :P what ever happened to the original topic?


I never said the situation in Tibet right now is good at all, but frankly it's quite one-sided to solely focus on this, what about the relative social and scientific progress that was brought to Tibet during the Maoist era, albeit certain distortions existed back then as well?

I agree that the talk on the issue is one-sided, but both sides are fairly one-sided to be quite frank. Either the Dalai Lama was a perfect theocrat who ruled a divine, hidden Shangri La, or the Dalai Lama is an evil feudalist CIA agent who wants to impose a stone-age religious fundamentalism and destroy China. Both are equally based on a caricature. I think the Dalai Lama himself recognizes the benefits of Chinese development, but at the same time many Tibetans who like the development nonetheless feel that cultural autonomy for the Tibetans is simply not respected by the Chinese state.

What you find is that normally those propagating these caricatures are motivated by self-interest, and people ignore that. On one hand the Tibetans ignore facts to bolster their claims for independence The Chinese slander the Tibetan exiles because they have an interest in maintaining political control over the territory. Liberals and Maoists alike who support each group then go and ignore the nuance of the problem because it is ideologically easier for them to accept the argument of one side or not the other.


To get it to the original topic, you have a similar phenomenon with Hinduism. Either Hinduism is a beautiful, peaceful religion that seeks the divinity in all people, or it is an evil ideological superstructure that forces everyone into restrictive caste roles. There is in fact a complicated history which neither caricature really captures. This is especially true with a religion as complicated and diverse as Hinduism.

There are some serious problems with the religion, of course. There have been huckster yogis since the time of the Buddha who like to impress crowds by sitting on a bed of nails, while there are totally legitimate Yogis who live in the forest and occasionally preach wisdom and philosophy.