| | In the 1850s, archeologists uncovered, in North India, now Pakistan, an ancient civilization, the Indus Valley civilization, which flourished between 3000-1500 B.C.E. It revealed much about how elements came together to form a collection which is often called Hinduism, a combination of the habits and thought of the Indus Valley civilization and the contributions of a nomadic tribe called the Aryans (referring to a language group and not the mythical pure white race referred to by the Nazis). The words Hindu and Indian probably derive from the Indus.
The Aryans brought with them the language of Sanskrit and an oral tradition of knowledge called the Veda. Different collections of the Veda deal with rituals, including rituals for human sacrifices to the gods. Their society was also stratified according to occupations. There were priests and teachers who were the Brahmins. There were also warriors and administrators, and there were farmers. A fourth group of people were simply the peasants or common folk. This evolved into a caste system, a social arrangement where people are identified as having different duties and privileges. Outside of this system are the "outcastes" or "untouchables" who do the dirty work, like burning dead bodies or cleaning toilets.
The people do not rebel at not being treated equally because of their belief in Karma, that if they live their lives well in this existence, they will be reincarnated in a higher caste. Those who do not do as they should may be reincarnated in a lower caste or even as an animal.
Another collection of texts is called the Upanishads. They represent a perspective called Vedanta, which means the end or completion of the Veda. The Upanishads focus on two courses of thought: the essence of human self and the essence of ultimate reality. The word which represents the human self is atman, and the concept for ultimate reality is Brahman. Both atman and Brahman are ways of saying, "God," but atman is a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman is more all encompassing. Everything is a manifestation of Brahman. And, Brahman is so all encompassing as to not be describable in human language. We can only get an idea of Brahman by saying what Brahman is not. Brahman is not limited and does not have qualities.
In one sense, Vedic religions can be said to be polytheistic because they identify many gods, yet they are monistic in the sense that all gods are manifestations of the one god, Brahman. And, there are factions among those who talk of Brahman who think of him as abstract, impersonal, yet others consider him to be more imminent. These factions, however, get along with each other because they think of this as merely looking at Brahman in different ways, like one may describe water as H2O or as a cold splash in the face.
Less important than the Vedas but more popular is a text called the Bhagavad-gita. It is part of a longer poem called the Mahabharata, and it describes a dialogue between Arjuna, a war leader, and Krishna, a human form of the god Vishnu.
The war is between cousins in one large family, and Arjuna is a leader who is expected to give the signal for his side to attack. However, he looks out at his cousins and family members on the opposing side and loses the will to fight them. He puts his sword down and considers not starting the attack.
Krishna is in the role of Arjuna's chariot driver, and he tries to persuade Arjuna to go ahead and start the battle. At first, he tries to shame Arjuna into doing his duty. A leader who walks away from a battle may be branded a coward. However, this does not bother Arjuna. He is too contemplative than to be worried about such things. He wonders about the value of war and the dishonor of killing his family members, those whom he knows from childhood and loves.
Krishna, first, tells Arjuna that he is thinking about death and killing in a wrong way. Death is not an end to a spirit's life. It is just moving to another existence. It is like changing clothes. A person's next incarnation may be positive or negative depending on how that individual prepared for it. It is not Arjuna's responsibility.
Next, Krishna talks about how actions can avoid bad, or even good, Karma if they are done without regard to consequences. One should be detached. Looking for rewards is selfish. It is putting too much emphasis on influencing an outcome. This is beyond the concern of a non-deity, a mere leader of war. Arjuna needs to play his role, as others need to play theirs. It is his duty, his dharma, to do, not to reflect on what he does.
Krishna persuades Arjuna that he, Krishna takes responsibility for what happens. Arjuna is just the archer at his side.
In the end, Arjuna is persuaded to go ahead and begin the battle and perform his function as a war leader. It is considered freedom to be unattached to goals and consequences and merely do what is one's dharma according to one's essence.
It's ironic that the Bhagavad-gita is a call to war, but people such as Gandhi have found support for non-violence in it.
There is much more to Hinduism than this. I am not doing it justice, and some might think I am slanting it through my own biases. I am not a Brahmanist. I do not believe in reincarnation or in doing things without attachment. I think the caste system is terrible, but I won't go as far as saying all Hindus are evil. I have studied this only for a short time and cannot claim to know as much about it as someone who is a Brahmanist. I can study a driver's manual, but it doesn't mean I know how to drive if I've never actually experienced driving. I would like to talk with Hindus on my messageboard and learn more about their thoughts, just as I welcome Christians and theists of all kinds. I also know that there are liberal Hindus who are working on weakening the caste system and making things better for women and making the religion more reasonable. This is also being done with other religions, even Christianity.
Rather than shooting people who don't agree with us, let's talk about things and clarify our thoughts.
Bis bald,
Nick
|
|
