Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[A_Gupta]

The SGPC itself is a political organization formed under political influence to "unify" the spiritual and temporal aspects of the Sikh faith and as such the reason why the Akali Dal would fail the doctrinal tests of secularism. Like the works of Arvind Sharma.

What doctrinal tests of secularism, and whose doctrine?

Roughly, to me, secularism says that issues that have no rational, agreed-upon decision procedure should not be brought into politics.

[ShauryaT]

The SGPC itself is a political organization formed under political influence to "unify" the spiritual and temporal aspects of the Sikh faith and as such the reason why the Akali Dal would fail the doctrinal tests of secularism. Like the works of Arvind Sharma.

What doctrinal tests of secularism, and whose doctrine?

Roughly, to me, secularism says that issues that have no rational, agreed-upon decision procedure should not be brought into politics.

I was referring to the doctrine of separation of the church or religious authority and the state. Also meant to say I like the works of Arvind Sharma.

[A_Gupta]

^^^

Anyway, the pre-history of this thread lies in Ulan Bator's question about what core Hindu beliefs are. I think Prof. Arvind Sharma's essay leads to some further thoughts.

Suppose there was a culture that said, you could play only one of several sports, e.g,. you could play football but not cricket, and so on. Or you could play only one of the musical instruments, only the violin, or only the piano or only the tabla.

We would all be astonished at this illogic.

But we calmly accept this logic that has been stuffed down our throats regarding the category of "religion". The scare-quotes are deliberate, by the end of this note, you can decide whether they are justified or not.

Why is it illogical to try to be both a Christian and a Muslim, in a way it is not illogical to play football and cricket? It is reasonable to think that a person should not and cannot hold two logically contradictory beliefs, e.g., that the Bible remains the inerrant Word of God, and also the Quran is the inerrant Word of God that supersedes the Bible. Those respective beliefs are required in order to be a Christian or a Muslim, and you cannot sincerely hold them at the same time.

Football and cricket do not require any "beliefs". Nor does the playing of musical instruments. They are things you perform, and nothing prevents you from being the performer of many things.

There is another class of thing that does not require belief - experiential knowledge. Roughly, this is wisdom that is based on the experience of inner transformations that have occurred within you.

I'm not saying that Christianity or Islam do not have their performative or experiential aspects. But their foundation is belief. Performative, experiential truths are not in competition in the way the Quranic/Biblical beliefs are, and so there is no bar to any mix of practices and experiences. That is why many Japanese can be both Shinto and Buddhist. I do not think that the so-called religion of "Hinduism" is based on belief. That is why you can/could be both a Hindu and a Sikh. Now of course, Sikhism has declared itself to be a religion in the formal sense; and IMO, has also lost much of its earlier dynamism, IMO.

The idea that one's actions arise from beliefs, and that people fall into categories based on belief, and so on, is one of the more pernicious things that arise from the universalism of the West. It is what makes religions mutually exclusive. One would not go about asking people the beliefs based on which they play football -- the cognitive wrongness is apparent; but we have so absorbed the Western assumptions that the cognitive wrongness of "what is the core Hindu belief" is not apparent. For me, it took Balu to wake me up.

Am I saying that "doing puja is akin to playing football?" Only to an extent, and precisely the extent that neither doing puja nor playing football should be seen as needing a justification in belief. Your reasons for playing football or doing puja and my reasons can be very different -- indeed, your practice may be based in some personal belief you have -- but I don't have to share that belief, to have any belief at all, or could have a belief totally contradictory to yours. It doesn't matter. There is no core belief in the way the inerrancy of the Quran is the common belief of Muslims.

[brihaspati]

Super stuff. Spot on, but it took me hundreds of words and scores of posts to try and say this.

heavy duty bullshit by guruji. No wonder you like it. Makes no sense at all. Applying the same law to two men, is the same as applying the same medicine to two men. Human drive and behaviour everywhere is the same. Any part of your unique culture that isn't hurting anyone else, is just fine. Nobody's asking anyone to change that.

See why universalism is so useful for hardcore bullshiters! Without the crutch of "western universalism" to lean on, how could KrishnaK bullshit about "part of unique culture that is not hurting anyone"! "hurt" is a matter of perception. So KrishnaK type of bullshitting will have to support Khomeinis call for execution of Salman Rushdie as the latter's unique "culture" of lampooning a claimed prophet of a certain religion based on actual verses attributed to that prophet - "hurt" Khomeini. Also support the beheading of a filmmaker by a Muslim in an European country - because that filmmaker's unique culture of making critical documentaries on Islam in his country hurt some muslim.

What this type of bullshiting carefully hides under lofty claims of "human drive and behaviour is everywhere the same" is the bullshit state of knowledge about human behaviour and motivations. If krishnaK's bullshit were true, given identical situations, two humans would behave in exactly the same way. All social situations, and social events become predictable. Judges would be redundant, courts unnecessary - only documenting machines required, which would tick off the features of the particular situation, and predict the expected behaviour, which by KrsihnaK's bullshit should match actual human behaviour for that situation - and therefore no real crime/deviation from law can be attributed to the human: it was the situation which made him behave so.

[shiv]

Super stuff. Spot on, but it took me hundreds of words and scores of posts to try and say this.

heavy duty bullshit by guruji. No wonder you like it. Makes no sense at all. Applying the same law to two men, is the same as applying the same medicine to two men. Human drive and behaviour everywhere is the same. Any part of your unique culture that isn't hurting anyone else, is just fine. Nobody's asking anyone to change that.

If you have some difference of opinion with brihaspati, I believe I could have been left out of it and I would have ignored any bickering but tried to see if I can learn something. However you have chosen to take a pot shot at brihaspati off my shoulder and made me pay attention to what you have written and here is something that I noticed

You say

Applying the same law to two men, is the same as applying the same medicine to two men. Human drive and behaviour everywhere is the same.

This is precisely why the same medicine of legal penalties must be applied equally to homosexuals and paedophiles. Human (sex) drive and (deviant sexual) behavior is the same and surely the same medicine should be administered. I don't suppose you could have any disagreement with your own prescription

[UlanBatori]

The idea that one's actions arise from beliefs, and that people fall into categories based on belief, and so on, is one of the more pernicious things that arise from the universalism of the West. It is what makes religions mutually exclusive. One would not go about asking people the beliefs based on which they play football -- the cognitive wrongness is apparent; but we have so absorbed the Western assumptions that the cognitive wrongness of "what is the core Hindu belief" is not apparent. For me, it took Balu to wake me up.

Guptaji, your analogy with ppl playing multiple sports is beautiful.

Then you go into this notion that if someone asks

What are the core beliefs of Hinduism/SD?

It is the QUESTION that is wrong. Sorry, that is the standard middle-school excuse for not answering questions.

If "religion" does not involve "beliefs", well, what is it then? Of course, ppl here would argue that "Hinduism is not a religion". Well, an Indian Tax Court has agreed, which is why donations to Hindu Temples are not recognized as tax-exempt donations to religious institutions, unlike donations to Churches, Mosques, Pagodas and Synagogues. NICE GOING!!! We are de-recognized in the land where Sanatana Dharma was born. With our total agreement!

Now we are told that Hindus/SDs have no Beliefs. To follow your soccer/cricket analogy, it is like going out on a soccer field, and using one's hands to punch the ball into the goal, while standing on the other guy's stomach. Why? Oh! Because we can't be asked to follow any Rules of the game! The very question is silly!! We are Sanatana Dharmis! We can bowl with our arms bent (why not? why stick to stupid rules about 15-degree max arm bending?)

OK, nice job, we are defining ourselves in the eyes and minds of most of Humanity (that can read BRF or converse with its postors) with a 100 pages of posts, as Pagans, Heathain, Agnostics, Atheists, total Philistines (apologies to Palestinians).

I respectfully submit that this all stems from being too lazy to define what we believe. Also, from a need to define oneself as being superior to other mortals. Ppl are doing extreme contortions to avoid thinking and recognizing that we are all parts of the same Creation (one of MY Core Beliefs, BTW). This avoidance of reality takes the form of declaring questions on Core Beliefs as verboten, declaring certain books/chants etc Unquestionable, etc etc.

There is nothing wrong with having Core Beliefs, and that is NOT a divisive path, it does NOT follow that being a YYYY and XXX are mutually exclusive. It is a bit challenging to identify the commonalities in Core Beliefs, and perhaps one has to go easy on those which appear to conflict with the Core Beliefs of others, except where they infringe on our basic rights.

As you say, back to the question: What are the Core Beliefs of Sanatana Dharma? This is not to distinguish SDs from others, it is to define what they (we) are. Clarity.

[ShauryaT]

Am I saying that "doing puja is akin to playing football?" Only to an extent, and precisely the extent that neither doing puja nor playing football should be seen as needing a justification in belief. Your reasons for playing football or doing puja and my reasons can be very different -- indeed, your practice may be based in some personal belief you have -- but I don't have to share that belief, to have any belief at all, or could have a belief totally contradictory to yours. It doesn't matter. There is no core belief in the way the inerrancy of the Quran is the common belief of Muslims.

SD if it does have any "core" belief, at this stage of my exploration, I would say there is only one. We have "theories" on the nature of the Atman. That is it. Presuming Charvakism is discounted from SD systems all the six Veda based systems and the three non-vedic traditions can agree on this one "core" thing. That is not to say there are no beliefs, values, principles. But each system has a slightly different focus and many do have overlaps with each other. E.g: For me, I would not understand Buddha, were it not for an understanding of the idioms of the Upanishads. Trying to find the common denominators, such as "truth" to be the one element common to all, would devalue the overall message developed within each stream.

Many modern Hindus have to become comfortable with this idea. Many established "so called" scholars also instinctively react to western charges and arguments derived from how they see their beliefs, values, systems and ask for SD counterparts. Me personally, am very irritated with some folks, who keep on defining SD in terms of "not" Christianity or Islam. Batori ji can get many answers to his questions but he seems to be after that "one" set of "core" answers and he is not going to get one for there is no "core" in that sense.

[ShauryaT]

This is precisely why the same medicine of legal penalties must be applied equally to homosexuals and paedophiles. Human (sex) drive and (deviant sexual) behavior is the same and surely the same medicine should be administered. I don't suppose you could have any disagreement with your own prescription

[johneeG]

To apply the same law on two men, you need to ignore their individualities, their uniquenesses and construct a non-real abstract entity which is formed after trimming off those bits of these two individuals that dont agree and hence describes no one. There starts the first step in dehumanization of the human civilization where as much of the different aspects of humanity as possible must be trimmed away, to create a human-entity that represents none. The end product of the "rationally universal" project is therefore a convenient shell which can then be defined according to the context and convenience of those who have the power to do so.

Super stuff. Spot on, but it took me hundreds of words and scores of posts to try and say this.

Super stuff indeed. I knew that the left-wing libertarians of the west have an equal (if not more) part in plundering and "genociding" what they consider to be "the other", but I did not know how they could bring themselves to do it. The answer is in the bolded point in Brihaspati-ji's post. Dehumanizing and labeling "the other", is the first step in genocide.

Here is an example of "dehumanizing" at work:

One of my good friends is a prof of pyschology a pol-sci dept in a UKstani univ (a good example of cross collab b/w diff areas of science). He was telling me about how there is a section of people in the pol-sci community who are proponents of "rational choice theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory), who irrationally defend their philosophy against any criticism. They claim that rational-choice is universally human and that the politics of every country that has some form of democracy can be modeled successfully by Rational-Choice theory.

One of the piskology/behavioral econmics oriented guys in the community proved in a study, that most people DO NOT make rational choices in politics and the prof also provided statistical evidence that conclusively proved it so. They proved an early version of what is now mainstream knowledge: People who deeply believe in something when provided with evidence contrary to that belief, stick even more closely to that very belief (a version of cognitive dissonance). This caused a huge consternation within the rational choice community and made them kick out a few profs/post grads because they supported the new evidence, thereby proving that the study was correct Since the rational thing to do would be to have accepted that contrary evidence and modify their theories.

This is exactly what happens to any one who tries to apply abstract philosophy like a mathematical equation on ALL humans expects everyone to follow it like a robot, and obviously dehumanizing them in the process.

I haven't read about rational choice theory, but I seem to have unknowingly written a criticism of it.

USA looks after its own interests alone

We are all taught that nation-states look after their interests especially the 'superpowers'. But, does this dictum tally with the actual behaviour of the nation-states?

When someone says, "USA(or any other nation-state) looks after its own interests"; then one assumes that in that in that statement, 'USA'(or any other nation-state) refers to the people of that state or atleast the majority of people of that state. If we are referring to the majority of the people of a state when we talk about a nation-state, then does the behaviour tally with the dictum we are taught?

I don't think so. IMHO, nation-states(or any organizations) look after the interests of those who control them.

So, nation-states(like the erstwhile historical empires) primarily look after the interests of those who rule them. The interests of the rulers are of highest priority. The interests of the country(or even the system) are secondary for. The rulers can be political, economical, social, cultural, or religious forces. They may be ruling covertly or overtly. They may rule directly or through proxies.

Nation-states(like any other organization) becomes a vehicle to fulfill the needs, desires, whims, and fancies of the rulers/controllers. In fact, any organization can be further sub-divided into sections, each having its own ruler/controller(with his own agendas and bias).

So, nation-state has a set of people who control it. All of these people need not have same interests. They may have some common interests. But, all their interests need not be common. Different people have differing interests. The corporations have certain interests. Politicians have certain interests. Generals heading military and intelligence bodies have their own agendas. Each of these categories can be sub-divided into further categories(which are headed by another set of people). The lower down one is on hierarchy, the lesser his views/deeds will impact the views/deeds of organization(in this case, nation-state). Actually, let me refine it and say that the further you are from the decision making process, thew the lesser your views/deeds will impact the views/deeds of organization.

Any organization(including a nation-state) is controlled by people. And, people have emotions. Emotions like: desires, anger, greed, delusions, ego, and envy; are present in all the people. Whenever, a logical course is not followed we can easily put it down to an emotion. If a person has not taken the logically correct choice, then one can account it to one of emotions. Eg:
Q: Why did you do it, when you know better than that?
A: I was angry! or
A: I was afraid(delusion)! or
A: I was ecstatic(delusion)! or
A: I became greedy! or
A: I jealous!
A: I couldn't resist the temptation(desire)!

The primary in all beings is:ego. 'I'. This leads to 'Mine'. That means, people think,"whats in it for me(or my people)?"
This leads to:
a) nepotism i.e. favouring one's favourites.
b) corruption i.e. putting individual goals above the goals of organization.

So, there is ample chance that people may not make correct choice even when they have the correct knowledge. Of course, people seldom have correct knowledge and wherewithal to assess it properly. That means, the chances of people(consequently the organizations) making mistakes is always high. Now, add to it that the interests of the decision making people may be at odds with the supposed goals of the organization. Then, consider that this can happen at all levels(sections) with an organization. Even in a relatively small organization, the performance of different sections can have an impact on the final performance of the organization itself. But, there is also a chance that it can rectified quickly due to the smaller scale. But, as the scale increases, this becomes more difficult to rectify. So, larger organization can find it difficult to pinpoint the problem. This becomes more difficult if the problem is not limited to one sector but is spread across the several sectors. If the problem ids underlying, then it is much more difficult to locate and cure. So frequently, in such cases, the symptoms are cures while the original problem persists and continues to grows worse. We are assuming that people want to solve the problem. But, most of the time, those in the organization don't want to solve it because the status quo suits them or trying to solve it involves lot of risk (particularly if the problem happens to be in the higher echelons).

To this equation, nepotism adds another angle. Nepotism(and favoritism) is far more feasible in the higher levels than the lower levels due to the powers wrested at higher levels. Nepotism ensures that the system continues to be headed by small set of people who have relations to each other. The relations could be family relations or business relations. Cartels/nexus of power are formed such that people protect and promote each other within a small selected group. These links can be formed through business relations and marital relations. This gives rise to elites who wield power and money. These people control all the choke points of a society. They project their interests on to the nation and society.

All of it is common knowledge. But, somehow, people want to think about nation-states as if they are robots trained to look after their national interests. They completely ignore that human aspect. The thing that can change the human aspect is ideology. So, ideology needs to be given the importance also, when trying to understand the actions of a state. The behaviour of the nation-states is much more understandable when we take the role of human behaviour(including individual/group agendas) and ideological motivations(of the people controlling the state) into account.

This explains the behaviour of US, pak, India, Iran, Libya, or any other state. None of these states looks after their national interests.

You say that US acts according to its national interests. But, for that, first you have to define the national interests of US. I would presume that weakening the entities that fund terrorists would be part of the US national interests. Then, if the rulers of US cared about its national interests, then it wouldn't be funding pakis who fund terrorists who kill US soldiers. Not just US soldiers, but even the mainland security is threatened by the terrorists, is it not? Then, why are rulers of US comfortable with funding them indirectly? I don't expect, US to serve Indian interests, but US is not even pursuing US interests.

Similarly, do rulers of India care about Indian interests? Then, why aman ki tamasha even when the 26/11 case has not moved an inch in pak?

Do rulers of pak care about paki interests? Then, why are they not going after the terrorists that are ravaging their nation?

But, in all of the above cases, the nations are perfectly protecting the interests of those who rule them.

Link

So, people(and consequently organizations) don't make logical or rational choices due to:
a) lack of correct knowledge or ignorance i.e. avidya.
or
b) they make wrong choices even when they have correct knowledge due Kama(desire), Krodha(anger), Lobha(Greed), Moha(Delusion/Confusion), Madha(Vanity), Mathsarya(envy).

----
There seems to be some discussion on 'Natural State' and 'Universal values'. It is seen that no value is followed universally, so strictly speaking there is no such a thing as universal. The only entity that seems to be universal is something which must be common to all.

Since it is common to all, it cannot have any special human qualifications. Such a thing has been called as Aathma or Brahman in Bhaarath. But, this Aatham which is universal has been described by Shri Krushna in the following manner: It cannot be burnt by fire, it cannot be touched by wind, it cannot be wet by water, it cannot be cut by sword. It cannot be killed. It does not dies not is it born.

This is the entity that is supposed to be common to all living things. Sometimes, even the non-living things are thought to possess an Athma. Sometime, theory is proposed that only One Athma exists.

The highest Vaidhik Truth is that Athma is same as Brahman: Aham Brahma Asmi.

In Aadhi Shankaracharya's Shivoham hymn, he rejects all the attributes which are not him.

This is exactly what Bji had described:

you need to ignore their individualities, their uniquenesses and construct a non-real abstract entity which is formed after trimming off those bits of these two individuals that dont agree and hence describes no one.

So, Aathma or Brahman is such an entity which is common to all. It is said to be all pervasive and hence is called Vishnu. It is said to be beneficial to all and so is called Shiva.

This seems to be the common thing.

At a lower level, the following are commonly seen among people.
Avidhya(Ignorance)
and
Kama(desire), Krodha(anger), Lobha(Greed), Moha(Delusion/Confusion), Madha(Vanity), Mathsarya(envy)

Other factors that seems to influence the thinking and action of people is:
a) habits: Once a person is habituated to a particular thinking or activity, he is likely to keep repeating it until he gets rid of that habit or acquires another new habit to replace the old habit.
b) actions or thinking of people more successful than them: people emulate those who are seen as more successful than them.
c) majoritarianism: people follow what is seen as the views of majority of the people.

The modern propaganda tools seem to work at (b) and (c). Through media, they tell people that most of the people are thinking X/Y and you must also think the same. Through educational institutions or high powered committees, they tell people that 'experts' think X/Y, so you must agree with them. Once the people are habituated to their line of thinking, then the inertia of habit will sustain it with little or no effort.

Coming to the natural state of things:
I don't know what is the meaning of 'natural', but I would use the word 'harmonious'. Those attitudes and actions which are harmonious are to be encouraged. What is harmonious?
Giving happiness to most of the people most of the time.

So, harmonious can be called as 'Dharma'.

Para-upkaraya punyaya papaya para-peedanam
Helping others is Dharma and harming others is Adharma.

Of course, it requires people to rise above Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Madha, and Mathsarya. It requires people to give up bad habits. It requires most people to follow proper Dharma. It requires the elites to follow Dharma.

Broadly, the general Dharma for all is:
n Hinduism, there are 2 types of Dharma:
a) Samanya Dharma (General)
b) Vishesha Dharma (Special) (Contextual)

Samanya Dharma(General):

It seems, according to Manu:

ahimsa satyam asteyam shaucham indriyanigraham
etam samasikam dharmam chaaturvarnye abhravin manuh

Ahimsa(Non-violence), Satyam(Truth), Asteyam(Non-Stealing), Shaucham(Cleanliness) and Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses) are the Dharma of all the 4 varnas.

The general Dharma applicable to all are:
Ahimsa(Non-violence),
Satyam(Truth),
Asteyam(Non-Stealing),
Shaucham(Cleanliness) and
Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses)

The priority is also clear. Ahimsa(Non-Violence) has the highest priority(over and above Satya/Truth also).
Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah.
Ahimsa is the highest Dharma.

So, when there is a conflict between Ahimsa(Non-Violence) and Satya(Truth), then Ahimsa get higher priority.

These 5 are the general rules for all.
Then, there are special rules. The special rules are based on the time, place, circumstance and subject. It varies from person to person, from gender to gender, from place to place and time to time.

The Special rules have higher priority than the General rules. So, a soldier, whose special duty is to kill, is exempted from the general rule of Ahimsa.

Killing oneself(suicide) is considered highest himsa(violence). Suicide is a bigger offense than the Murder. The punishments given for the same crime are not equal. The one with higher privileges gets higher punishment for the same crime.

So, Hindhuism is neither strictly contextual nor totally ignorant of context. The problem that other systems generally suffer is when they are either totally contextual or totally devoid of context. Hindhuism has more elegant solution to this by dividing the Dharma into two parts one that is based on context and one that is absolute.

So, there are two sets of values: universal harmonious values and contextual harmonious values.

Universal harmonious values which should be followed by everyone are:
Ahimsa(Non-violence),
Satyam(Truth),
Asteyam(Non-Stealing),
Shaucham(Cleanliness) and
Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses)

The contextual harmonious values are defined based on time, place, circumstance and object. However, one most important point is that in Hindhu system, Contextual harmonious values i.e. Vishesha Dharma gets higher priority than the Samanaya Dharma(Universal harmonious values).

If we are to equate the Universal harmonious values(Samanaya Dharma) with human rights and the Vishesha Dharma(contextual harmonious values) are equated to national laws, then
according to the Hindhu system national/local laws have higher priority than human rights. Because the national/local laws are framed based on the unique situation of that particular national/locality.

Of course, it understood in Hindhuism that in the long run, all national laws/local laws must be in accordance with the universal harmonious values(Samanya Dharma).
Ahimsa(Non-violence),
Satyam(Truth),
Asteyam(Non-Stealing),
Shaucham(Cleanliness) and
Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses)

----
Bji,
glad to see you post again. I was missing your posts. (RajeshA saar also seems to be missing from action from some days ).

There seems to be something interesting:
Sometime ago, we had discussed about Malsi being influenced by Moses creed.

In the following picture: Western Universalism will be the combination of Atheism, Materialism and Hedonism.

My theory(still in evolving process, yet to crystallize):

Evolution/devolution of ideas/philosophies:


PS: I'll write about it later...

there can be a branch from Moses 2.0 to Islam.

We should keep johneeG's hypotheses as open. Influence diagrams cannot be formed right now - with not enough material to either reject or accept. There are tantalizing clues towards common origins.

The written records stuff is not so straightforward. If they were written on perishable stuff long before say the 2500 BCE mark, they will simply not survive. Catastrophic destruction of population centres would also have contributed.

My hypo about MB was that it was a three layered story, with some elements coming from the 5700-6000 BCE era [offshore port cities sinking into the sea - this was the period of last rapid sea-level rise - sinec then - up to 3000 BCE, water levels actually fell by about 3 m]. I read about the tentative dating of structures in the gulf of Cambay indicates a similar period much later than my original hypo. But no persihable reocrds survive anywhere from that period.

Question is why did nt they use terracotta or rock carvings like in ME or Egypt. Maybe they did - when parts of them moved off after the disaster - when they colonized ME and Egypt. I mentioned about the early landmarks-words in Egypt - k-r-m-t, "black earth" - very very close to -kr-sna-m(ri)t(tika), or "d-r-s" or with added "-t" for upper Egypt [south] meaning "red/dry earth" with tantalizing - "d-hu-sar".

Compare the verses extolling the "sun-disk" in the Aten glyphs of Amarna, the Hebrew Bible extolling of Yahweh [Yha] and the Vedic "sun" extolling.

How is Vedic religion related to Egyptian 1.0 and Hebrew 1.0 religions? TIA.

The blue lines indicate possible influences. So, its a conjecture.

Everyone agrees that Vedic religion is the oldest religion. And that India was one of the grandest centres of human civilization. India was also always rich and powerful having huge influence. We know that Judaism 1.0(Hebrew 1.0) and Egyptian 1.0 were pagan and polytheistic. Generally, people assume that Judaism was always monotheistic, but thats not true. There seems to have been a lot of struggle, violent purging and murders to steer Judaism in the direction of monotheism. So, Judaism 1.0 is being considered as pagan and polytheistic, while Judaism 2.0 is being seen as an evolving monotheism.

Now, the presumptions being made in the conjecture(that Hinduism has possible influences on Judaism 1.0, Egyptian 1.0, Arabian Paganism and Greek ) are:
a) There was contact among Judaism 1.0, Egyptian 1.0 and India through trade or other means.
b) This contact must have lead to interactions and export/import of art, culture, religion and philosophy.
c) Since India was renowned cultural(religious and philosophical) centre, the influence of India on other cultures woulds have been considerably greater than their influence on India. And there is a thumb rule that the rich and powerful country's culture is also accepted by other countries. And there is no doubt that India was one of the most powerful and rich countries(if not the richest and strongest).
d) India's influence would be particularly great on pagan and polytheistic cultures.

Some of my doubts are:
a) What is the exact nature of relation among Judaism 1.0, Egyptian 1.0, Arabian Paganism and Greek?
b) Was Greek always Hellenistic? or was there preceding version?
c) Buddhism seems to be a big enigma. It seems that Buddha's date was shifted to suit the western bias of Indologists. It seems that Buddha was a much older figure. We also know that Buddhism was always missionary. So, what exactly is the role of Buddhism within and without India?

Bji,
Regarding Islam and Judaism 2.0, what kind of influence do you suggest?
a) Primary Influence or main influence?
b) secondary influence? or
c) possible influence?

^^^main influence, with the iconoclastic branch of Byzantine [and not the iconodule branch] christianity as secondary.

Judaism, Egyptian both could have been mediated by Canaanite and in roots - Mesopotamian/Sumerian - in turn probably driven by emigre pushed out by floods from the west coast of India.

The pre-Mosaic phase was the Sumerian-Canaanite Baal worship. The post mosaic phase is the Akhenaten solar cult from Egypt interacting with Judaic to create the Mosaic. The 18th dynasty foundation was by a possibly remarkable woman, and we know not much about the transition. Interestingly - the founding mother - is described through a myth that is very similar to Indian traditions.

Subhash Kak writes: Rigvedic roots of Semitic gods?

The different Semitic gods have cognates in the Vedic pantheon. Yam may be connected to the Vedic Yama who in RV 10.10.4 is seen as being born from the waters, and Mot to the Vedic Mrityu, death. But more to the point, Ila represents Agni as in Yajurveda (VS) 2.3, whereas Ilaa represents Earth, speech, and flow. There is also the Vedic Yahvah. As an epithet it is associated with movement, activity, heaven and earth; it means the sacrificer and Agni, the chief terrestrial god. It is associated with energy like the Yahwah of the Semites. The name Yahvah occurs 21 times in the Rigveda . It may be compared to Shivah, an epithet for auspiciousness in the Rigveda, that later is applied regularly to Rudra.

Are Ila and Yahvah like El and Yahweh just by coincidence? We don't know, but we certainly do know of the Vedic-god worshiping Mitanni of North Syria who could have served as the intermediaries in connecting the Indians and the Semites.

An example:

पर वो यह्वं पुरूणां विशां देवयतीनाम ।
अग्निं सूक्तेभिर्वचोभिरीमहे यं सीमिदन्य ईळते ॥ [RigVeda 1.36.1]

RigVedic meaning of Yahvah (a Name of Agni):

1 yahva mf(%{I4})n. restless , swift , active (applied to Agni , Indra and Soma) RV. ; continually moving or flowing (applied to the waters) ib. (= %{mahat} Sa1y.) ; m. = %{yajamAna} , a sacrificer Un2. i , 134 Sch. ; (%{I}) f. du. heaven and earth RV. ; pl. the flowing waters (with %{sapta} , `" the seven great rivers "') ib. (cf. Naigh. i , 15).

2 yahvat mf(%{a4tI})n. ever-flowing (waters) RV.

Predictably, EJ sources want to debunk any linkage of Semitic god to Vedic tradition. One website called "Karma to Grace" has this to say - link

Yahweh is the unique name given to the God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament.
[...]
Is Yahvah the same as Yahweh? Well, let us ask the question more correctly, “Is hwhy the same as यह्व?” Can you read these two? Do you know what they say? Is there a linguistic tie between the two? Is the “H” of Hebrew represented here (there are two “H” sounds in Hebrew) the same as the “h” in Sanskrit? Are the vowels the same? The vowels aren’t even written in Hebrew, so we can’t easily know if they are the same as the Sanskrit ones. The “v” of Jahvah and the “w” of Yahweh —are we sure they are the same? In English they are quite different—one is a fluid and one is a fricative, and they represent completely unique sounds in English. “Wow” and “Vow” are completely different words and though they could be connected phonetically, we still do not identify them as the same words. Do they represent different sounds in Hebrew and Sanskrit? ..... {on and on in this vein}

About the topic of Malsi and Moses creed:
Is it possible that both of them developed together around 800 CE? They may be similar because they developed together?

And kudos to you Bji for your amazing hypothesis that Buddhism might have been into iconoclasm. If its true, then it explains the missing history of south. The history of south is missing and starts very late. Thelugu history starts so late. The earliest records of Thelugu history are supposed to be from 600 CE which is very very late. This was the time when the Buddhism was on its deathbed.

Most of the chapters in south history seem to be missing. This is the reason that the Sangam literature seems unique. What is the reason for this lack of historical records in this time? It seems to me that your hypothesis explains this perfectly. Buddhism was active in this region at that time and the records are missing from that time. So, Buddhism must have been involved in some way. If Buddhism itself was iconoclastic then it explains the lack of historical records in many areas.

[member_22733]

In the following picture: Western Universalism will be the combination of Atheism, Materialism and Hedonism.

Let me tweak it a bit for you. Western Universalism is a symptom of a rather typical mistake in statistics and that is: mistaking causation for correlation.

The circumstances in Europe resulted in an explosion of science and 'free thought'. The main causal factor for this was the dark Christian ages and the revolt against it. There was a definite correlation between the reason western science got so advanced and the western culture (which is now touted as universal).

What the folks in the west and the Indians Gungadeens (and even some self-respecting Indians) do is to make the mistake that western culture and norms CAUSED the explosion in western science, hence it must be "right", since science has largely provided the correct answer to the limited questions that it asks about the world.

Then they go on as follows: Since the western culture is "right", our culture must be wrong. This feeds into the inferiority complex of many Gungadeens and House N****s, resulting in self-hatred and complete abandonment of self-identity and of course a humongous lack of self-esteem.

Another concrete way to explain what I mean to say: Laws of thermodynamics are universal, humans increase the entropy of their surroundings no matter what they do. Laws of energy conservation are universal, if one eat less and work out more he or she is going to die sooner or later. These are universal facts and also these are the results of western science, but that DOES NOT mean democracy western culture and norms are universal facts as well.

[Vayutuvan]

Lokeshc: how can culture be right or wrong? Philosophy? Religion?

[member_22733]

Exactly my point and the crux of the issues being discussed here.

Lets take the example of Women's rights and LGBT rights, these became big issues in the west in the past 10 years and all of a sudden there were Gay Pride parades, pink Chaddi campaigns, rape issues in India etc being dug up by drain inspecting NGOs filled with Gungadeens.

Suddenly, gay rights and women's rights became universal. Regardless of the cultural situation in India, the solutions that were being touted here and elsewhere were borrowed verbatim from the west. Why does it need to be that way?

The west had slavery of the worst kind, genocide of the worst kind, racism of the worst kind all the while being scientifically superior than everyone else. It took its own pace and solved these issues (valid or not) within its own framework. Then they proceeded to shove their solutions down everyone's throat.

Why can we not try to solve our issues within OUR frameworks? Why does the west and associated gungadeens raise a hue and cry if the solution does not have the blessings from the west? (who has no clue to this day of what Indian culture is). Why do we let the west decide when an issue becomes "universal" and the swallow the solution developed in the west without even thinking of the context it was developed for?

This is not some rhetorical stuff pulled out of my musharraf, this is what my generation and my previous generation has done in India, it really does not make much sense.

[Arjun]

It seems to me there has been a continuous increase in the rate of growth of trade as well as human scientific achievement and knowledge, ever since the start of agriculture about 10,000 years back. This growth in knowledge of the human species was led (in the pre-Christian era) primarily by India, China and by a series of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean civilizations - with Indian and Chinese contribution likely being higher due to simple demographics (pretty much the same situation as today).

This rapidly exploding accumulation of knowledge was interrupted in large part by the advent of the two crusading Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam for about 1000 - 1200 years. The world has been intellectually ready to move to the data-driven science age for a longer time - but clearly the leadership in making the first move had to come from the regions that were at that point least contaminated by the religious hold of these two violently iconoclastic cults. Northern Europe (after Protestantism had "secularized" large parts of Northern Europe) and China were the only two regions that were likely to provide this leadership into data-driven science given the political map of the world. So it was not really a wonder that N. Europe took the lead.

To conflate the data and rationalism-driven Sciences that we are familiar with today, as having much to do intrinsically with 'Western' thought is therefore quite a mistake.

[Pulikeshi]

I respectfully submit that this all stems from being too lazy to define what we believe. Also, from a need to define oneself as being superior to other mortals. Ppl are doing extreme contortions to avoid thinking and recognizing that we are all parts of the same Creation (one of MY Core Beliefs, BTW). This avoidance of reality takes the form of declaring questions on Core Beliefs as verboten, declaring certain books/chants etc Unquestionable, etc etc.

There is nothing wrong with having Core Beliefs, and that is NOT a divisive path, it does NOT follow that being a YYYY and XXX are mutually exclusive. It is a bit challenging to identify the commonalities in Core Beliefs, and perhaps one has to go easy on those which appear to conflict with the Core Beliefs of others, except where they infringe on our basic rights.

As you say, back to the question: What are the Core Beliefs of Sanatana Dharma? This is not to distinguish SDs from others, it is to define what they (we) are. Clarity.

The Mango-lions must realize due to their non-lazy nature and superior intellect that -
A fish in the fish tank perhaps cannot understand the other fish tank called the Blue Bubble we live in!

Belief and Action are the two concepts here... There have been religions before Judeo-Christian-Islam trinity other than SD.
That what is commonly understood as religion today requires a belief, does not mean all contenders to religious status should.
Action in SD is more critical than belief, playing soccer and/or cricket as in A_Gupta's ex, is more important than which one is better,
but a more detailed articulation on Human Action requires more effort on my part.

Even more importantly (for me), someone on this other the OIT thread had asked me repeatedly what listening or reciting the Vedas did or meant -
the only honest answer is 'do' listen or recite and find out for yourself.
While a lot of folks are stuck on Moksha, to me it infuses something more primal induced by soma , but who am I to deny an others experience.

Given the intellectual laziness, but not avoidance of reality, most SD followers are acting in their best interest... busy working as DOO?
Now that some of them can retire or have, their is leisure to indulge the bored mind with such "isms"

For ex. what Ravana believed in is less interesting to us than what he did, his actions alone mattered.
No redemption can be found by professing belief and begging for forgiveness for example.
Yet we are here attempting to define what belief will redeem Ravana - can it?

The core beliefs of SD have not been articulated by anyone means you have your work cut out for you onlee!
Heck, I've not still got an answer if SD is local specialization or a universal truth claim yet onlee

[member_22733]

To conflate the data and rationalism-driven Sciences that we are familiar with today, as having much to do intrinsically with 'Western' thought is therefore quite a mistake.

From my informal survey of MUTU friends (of all non-western countries), they come to the conclusion that west "must" be right because it is "so advanced".

I ask them what they mean by advanced they take the example of science, "democracy", "freedom", military power etc. They are in awe of western science, military power and end up extrapolating that into everything else western. Most of them turn intellectually lazy (or turn Gungadeens once they realize they can get money peddling western culture) and then blindly convert and then become rabidly self-hating.

I give them the counter example of American and European slave trade, mass murder of Jews/Romanis and gays by Hitler, Apartheid, Genocidal Indian famines etc. Some tubelights do seem to go on after that, but those beliefs are very deeply held and it only causes some Cognitive Dissonance. They then explain, well they all learned a lesson from it and we should too, and since we are intellectually lazy let us adopt it verbatim with no concern to the Indian situation. The result of this process can be seen all over India and other colonized countries.

China and Japan have been exception to this rule. They adopted western science, advanced it and rejected everything else western , but China and Japan were never colonized!

[Arjun]

I ask them what they mean by advanced they take the example of science, "democracy", "freedom", military power etc. They are in awe of western science, military power and end up extrapolating that into everything else western. Most of them turn intellectually lazy (or turn Gungadeens once they realize they can get money peddling western culture) and then blindly convert and then become rabidly self-hating.

This was bound to happen. Awe of 'success' is the way every concept around the world sells. Even the 'barbaric' Germanic tribes of Northern Europe supposedly converted to Christianity after they associated the more economically successful Mediterranean people of that time with Christianity.

The Chinese and Japanese as people fall for this even more than the Indians do as people (I am not talking of the states here, but about the people).

Now for the first time in human history - there is a difference. We know not only about which regions are more economically powerful - but there has been massive migration of peoples across the globe and there is information on how these migrated folks perform economically in the lands where they seek to ply their trade. So now we have information on the success of specific ethnic categories of people in addition to the success of economies. Hindus, Jains and Sikhs outperform the local population wherever they have competed head to head. This is a new kind of 'success' that is bound to have its own huge repercussions as well - which is something that has been ignored on this thread. Increasingly there will be awe of not just the developed economies but of particular ethnic groups that have the capability to come out on top in these economies.

[brihaspati]

post-2

JohneeG garu and LokeshC ji,
you raise one topic I have to teach theoretically! Anyone who deals in the area, knows that simple or naive rational choice theory (RCT, often called VonNeumann-Morgenstern RCT) is a severely restrictive model of supposed human behaviour that is based on the assumption that humans have complete knowledge on things they are deciding on, and that they are capable of making free, informed, and full "optimization" on some measurable value criterion. On top of these assumptions, certain other assumptions have been foisted to make it all mathematically more tractable.

The historical reason for rise of such a theory can be traced in the Victorian drive to found Christianity on an alternative value-logic system that would accommodate the more number/calculation/maths based "science" which had become the crucial breakthrough for military superiority, in turn the underpinning of all of western "advances" and colonial/imperialism.

But VonNeumann's own personal history, and Morgensterns personal trajectory should be explored by those interested to see a very interesting way in which western thought developed centred around their civilizational pivot of making war while deflecting any sense of guilt that may arise. The central obsession, fulcrum, of western civilizational thought is for the sole purpose of making war. Once you start off from that axiom, all developments of western philosophy and thought fall into place.

RCT and its extensions takes the idea of western "war" into a theory based entirely on "maximization" of profits/gains of an identity or entity while in interaction with other similar maximizing entities.

RCT is severely criticized by experimental economists, game theorists, sociologists. I often start the particular module with a classroom experiment on variations of what game theorists call "coordination games", typically the types which most starkly show up the departure of actual human behaviour from assumptions and predictions of classical RCT. Every year, we find unpredictable variations in both nature and outcome of the games. If the unthinking hagiographical type of repeating jargon "universal human behaviour" were true, the real classroom experiments (and larger social experiments my postgrads run) would all show the same results and behaviour year after year.

In fact folks up to date on the domain, would know of the spate of studies following the 2008 meltdown which explore the links between the effects and impact of the artificial beliefs created by RCT based theories in economics, finance and related institutions, in enhancing the crash.

But I picked up the RCT issue also because it struck me as a most useful illustration of the problems of claims of "rationality" vis-a-vis western "universalism". Neumann/Morgensterns ideas represent a wests search for predictability and calculability of human behaviour, or more accurately the need to control such behaviour along pre-calculated, desired, trajectories even if they are very very conscious of actual human behaviour being quite opposite. The model is invented by minds obsessed with control, modeling life and civilization as continuous conflict, competition and war based on maximization of a problematic "self-interest" (problematic for definition) and then sought to be imposed as a universal "fact" and value more to ensure machine like compliance by humanity under the control of these minds for the "self-interest" of these minds.

The din of "rationality" claims is unsupported in real life, as experimental evidence accumulates - shows that humans remain unpredictable, with not only practical but emotional and other types of departures from assumptions of theories of rationality and only state coercion, through cultural and economic hegemony that so-called "rationality" can be approximately ensured.

The very fact of attempt to impose such models on public thought, and the constant state coercion and paranoid pursuit of ever increasing state intervention and control of the individual that marks "western civilization" without relying on this so-called "rationality" shows how the imposers are themselves very much aware of the falseness of their models.

[UlanBatori]

Action in SD is more critical than belief

OK, THERE's a Core Belief right there!

Re: St. Ravana: I read a deep treatise on the Internet (where else?) about how poor Ravana was seriously misunderstood: he was Held In Hi Esteem By the Honors and Awards Committee because of his deeply pious Actions. Probably a Member of the National Academy, winner of the Indra Award. He (and by same argument, same ppl, Duryodhana) were loved by their subjects much as Saddam and Yahya and Ronald Reagan and Dubya were. They wept when R. and D. were pest-e-sha'eeded. Both were regarded as top-flight Executives, superb Managers. Had they lived today, they would be heading the very top of the Dow Jones 30 and the S&P 500, plus the top Hedge Funds, Korean shipbuilders and Japanese car companies. Duryodhana would have won the Malcolm Baldridge Award easily.

So, one small misstep by R (gave Mrs. Ram a ride in his convertible) and by D (sat back and let Dussasana try whatever on Mrs. Pandava) respectively, was used to generate negative PR against them and they were destroyed, though in general they had done vastly more good Actions than the Pandavas did. In War, both were very Ethics-Conscious. A simple look at the Pandavas' lifestyle leaves no doubt about their Playboy/hedonist/gambler/Krikit Betting tendencies, hain? And in War, well... let's not go there, I have my primal Core Belief fears of what Blasphemy causes.

We have a problem, if we insist that SD only cares about Actions, not Beliefs.

Is it not important to ask what Core Beliefs SHOULD have guided the actions of these ppl, and hence deem certain actions unacceptable, which went against those Core Beliefs? Otherwise, like the Dravida Kazhagam, we should Logically, Rationally, and Unemotionally, (since we preach Detachment From Emotion) become worshippers of R&D and SR&D (Ravana & Duryodhana and Saddam,Reagan and Dubya)?

Among other things, it makes it rather difficult to convince thoughtful teenagers that they should follow SD and avoid being Converted to systems that very clearly articulate their Core Beliefs and promise Capitalist Wealth as a bonus, even as they ignore their genocides and tortures against those who do not have access to publish their gripes on the front page of the Noo Yoik Crimes or the Crimes of Islamabad.

BTW, JohneeGji, should there not be a straight path from SD to Capitalism in ur fine flowchart? SD literature clearly recognizes Capitalism from the very start. Vedic verses describe the 64,000 cows, 1,700,000 sheep etc donated by certain kings on the clear expectation of getting 64,000,000,000 cows, 1,700,000,000,000 sheep etc. in return.

One more point: Is "Ahimsa" a Universal Dictum, or a Contextual one? "Ahimsa" is fine as in 'Bad idea to kill ur neighbor even if his Bibi is pretty', but Ahimsa as in "Do not kill a fish/seal/walrus/bear/buffalo/camel" might not be practical if one hopes to impress ppl who must live in, say, Greenland, Mongolia, Chad etc.

In fact, now that one actually spends a microsecond thinking, perhaps Ahimsa is at the root of all civilization: the crazy idea allowed ppl to be a little bit less concerned about their friends eating them, and this allowed the formation of teams. Next, the idea that killing a buffalo or bear is wrong (easy to understand while nursing the bites and bruises and gore-holes while watching one's friends enjoying the meat) might have led one to try making fruits and tubers grow (they don't bite or gore or stomp on one). So it led to agriculture, and then they had to have storm-drains, and irrigation tanks - so construction engineering, diversifying from weapon-engineering.

Ooops! Just remembered the deadlines. Back to weapon-engineering, the most basic and earliest constructive human endeavor other than (never mind).

[Manish_Sharma]

Belief is not needed at all, you don't 'believe' that sun is rising, you just know:

[UlanBatori]

Nor is science, technology, thinking, or any work, by the same logic. Bhavitavyam Bhaved Eva. All is Maya. We are like that onlee. We can sit around shooting the Breeze.

[Pulikeshi]

We have a problem, if we insist that SD only cares about Actions, not Beliefs.

Who is we? If my idea that "Actions are more critical than belief" is just that, why do I care to enforce it on any other?
I only care what actions others are taking... that "We" have a problem is irrelevant to me...
In the brief time I get to spend on this forum, all I can do is share my idea based on my immersion into SD.

Foundation-ally all Dharma systems are arguing ideas about Karma (action) not just fate!
There is incredible clarity and confounding confusion all mixed and intertwined together...
Personally, what I am worrying about is if we become the other if one attempts a clean up and make it a belief!
Hence my pending articulation of brand spanking new Karma theory
or intellectual laziness or my daily Artha actions which take precedence

PS: Setting up a set of beliefs for SD to defend and prevent conversions or support proselytization is whose father what goes onlee..
People 'convert' due to emotions not due to intellect. Economics plays a role, but emotions are the key!

In fact, now that one actually spends a microsecond thinking, perhaps Ahimsa is at the root of all civilization: the crazy idea allowed ppl to be a little bit less concerned about their friends eating them, and this allowed the formation of teams.

Ahimsa has its place, but SD is not either for Himsa or Ahimsa, it is for tautologically Dharma
That is even folks like Kumarila argued (successfully) with the Buddhists that Himsa sanctioned by Dharma is Dharmic!
In SD (unlike the contrasts) Kshatriyas or Shudras do not 'sin' by killing or hunting for example...

All that said, SD is the oldest and at the very same time youngest religion in the world - yes its eternal
One area SD followers need to work on is that the "schools" defined by Colonial authors and tradition invented by them for Hinduism are constructs unnatural to SD... the schools are emergent, still arguing and less important in their distinctness... that I argue from mimamsa or samkya today has become arguing from traditions, but the "schools" themselves are not static as seen in Western traditions...
Also, most importantly, Moksha and Maya are highly overstated in this modern interpretation... Even Sankara, Kumarila Bhatta, VignanaBikshu, Nagarjuna... all lead lives of action...

Therefore, the best way perhaps is to rewire the people and their actions...
If we go defining beliefs it is similar to OIT for AIT - A "Unify Hinduism" project!

[Pulikeshi]

duplicate - deleted!

[shiv]

Ulan Batori, you have asked an interesting question about core beliefs of SD, and I will simply write what comes to mind when I think about it. I may or may not actually write down any core beliefs.

Please indulge me folks.

It is important to understand where the question is coming from when one asks for one's core beliefs. Let me explain. For example, do you believe that the earth is flat? In fact most (if not all) people on BRF will state that their "core belief" is that the earth is a sphere (or spheroid). That is an interesting belief. You would not have believed that unless someone told you - so core beliefs are usually information that someone has already put into your mind.

Of course one may change one's core beliefs later - but when it comes to religions like Christianity or Islam, there are "core beliefs" that are instilled into people's minds that are essentially unchangeable. If you change your core belief you are changing or rejecting the religion. People who grow up in a western Christian society are accustomed to knowing that there are certain religious "core beliefs" and that there is some variation in the core beliefs of say Protestantism versus Catholicism. In religions like Christianity and Islam - which came much later than other religions, it was important to memorize and state "one's core beliefs" because it was these "core beliefs" that set people of these religions apart from others. This fact is not obvious to the person who asks "What is your core belief". He has always been taught some set of core beliefs and has been told. "You are a Christian/Muslim. These are your beliefs"

For Hindus the problem did not exist until recently. As Balagangadhara noted in an article linked earlier by Arun Gupta, Hindus do not ask each other what their "core beliefs" are. Hindu core beliefs are taken for granted and practised without discussion by a large number of people. Anyone who observes Hindus leading their lives can reach certain conclusions about core Hindu beliefs and they do not necessarily have anything to do with "belief in God". it is more in the nature of belief in a system by which the world works. I would say "core principles" rather than core beliefs

1. Human life is not about the individual and his needs. It is about the individual living and working as part of a larger unit, the family, which is part of still larger unit, society, which is part of a still larger unit - the biosphere (all life forms) which are part of a larger whole (world/universe)

2. Birth and death are part of an endless cycle of life in which beings are reborn time and again, the only purpose being to live right and do the right things in life to enable oneself to escape the endless cycle of rebirth.

3. Living right means duties to family and society. The family unit starts with a male-female married couple who have children. Marrying and having children are duties. Children must be looked after - right until their education is complete and they are married, after which they start their duties. Human duty also mandates looking after one's elderly parents. Older people and teachers are to be given respect. Performing the religious rituals demanded for one's family deity, if any, as part of tradition is another duty

4. All life is sacred so wanton killing of animals is a sin.

5. All of nature, life and the whole universe is composed of equal measures of everything. Light and dark, heat and cold, happiness and sorrow. One maintains this balance of nature in one's own conduct by not desiring or showing an excess of anything. Excess anger, excess lust or excess greed. One takes as much as one needs and no more, and one gives as much as one can.

These are the "core principles" that are demanded of most Hindus and are followed to a greater or lesser extent by most Hindus. The nature or identity of God does not matter.

Any Hindu can figure this out simply by looking back at his own family and the families of other Hindus. We don;t ask each other what our core beliefs are - it is always someone who has been taught to imagine that everyone has some "core religious belief" who asks "What are core Hindu beliefs"

Hindu beliefs have less to do with God and more to do with duties. There are lots of Gods, but Hindu life is not dictated by them unless one is a priest or temple worker by profession. The word "belief" in English has a strong connection with God - and that is why it breaks down when applied to Hindus.

[UlanBatori]

Thanks, Shiv!
I would agree with many of those as "core" whether Principles or Beliefs.

But I would be bold enough to add a few: these may or may not be core SD, and I am sure the Mimamsiks would but it sure helps people live:

1. The belief in the Avataras.
2. The idea that the Almighty is not completely detached etc, nor is there any reason to expect the Principle of Detailed Balancing to hold. For instance, someone steals one's umbrella, then one does not expect next minute a lightning bolt comes down through the umbrella handle, etc). One just goes away confident, due to belief, that sooner or later the thief will sit down on a weak bamboo chair, forgetting that he stashed the umbrella below it with the tip pointing up.... This idea is of course tied into "karma" in some manner, except that the payback need not wait until the next rebirth as a dog that gets whacked by an umbrella.
3. That the Almighty is a friendly entity, "looking over us". What made me push the gas pedal to the floor and do a kamikaze merge left into the 65mph lane of Ulan Bator Ring Road, from the stopped lane where I was stopped as I had been every afternoon for the past 20 years (and ever since). Because "something told me" that the truck coming behind in the lane to my right seemed a bit flaky. ..when I looked in the rearview mirror about 10 seconds later, the truck had hit the embankment to the right, then bounced back and capsized exactly where my tiny car was standing b4 I floored the gas pedal. There was a nice dust cloud rising..

These things go into a "code of conduct", and the ability to tell right from at least much of the time.

[RamaY]

JohneeG garu, you forgot Secularism in your diagram. It is the antithesis of Hinduism.

Hinduism facilitates all manifestations of human-worldview of Param while ensuring Dharma is in firm control of social interactions between these (often) conflicting world-views.

Secularism removes Dharma as the ultimate enforcer & arbitrator in inter-religious interactions from this equation and demands non-existent equality between all those mutually-conflicting worldviews.

[shiv]

3. That the Almighty is a friendly entity, "looking over us".

This is an important difference. "God" for Hindus is not jealous or angry, He does not punish you for sins and reward you for sucking up to him. It is up to you to pick up brownie points as you go along - you don't have to involve god who is not going to get green with envy and either strike you down, or make sure you burn in hell.

However "God" for Hindus is one choice in a cafeteria. You can choose the "devotion to God" route to live your life - but that devotion does not absolve you from meeting fundamental duties to nature and society. Devotion to god may be one of the duties, but is not sufficient in itself.

You can devote your life to God and be a murderer, but god is not going to forgive you for being a murderer. He will not punish you either. You choose your path. If you do the wrong things - you are reborn - maybe as a cockroach, or maybe as a man found to be black while driving in America. The "purpose" of God for most Hindus is like that of any of the other religions - i.e. an example to follow, a crutch to lean on. But it's not mandatory and God is not an instant fixer of everything.

[Pulikeshi]

Quick Cliff-notes summary:

SDs these commandments were found in front of crisp bush!

1. Life is more than about you
2. You live in Ground Hogs day till Moksha!
3. Family is Pathi, Patni and hamare do but no woh!
4. Kill animals unwontedly or was it not wantonly?
5. Life is Yin & Yang - with a reason pick your poison
6. In Avataras we trust! - love to see this on the ₹
7. Karma is a she-dog
8. Almighty is benevolent

Anyone want to add two more to the list we can get a == with Moses then?

PS: No offense to anyone... like I said before we can each have our beliefs, your actions is all that matter!

[Pulikeshi]

Totally OT but maybe relevant -

Was sharing Friday madura with some folks, the topic got to startups and tribal knowledge, etc.
Someone brought up Drucker - "Culture will eat Strategy for breakfast!"
One of the two founders of successful startups in the group said something about SD which was interesting...
He said, if one is born into a caste and one always knew one had a 'default' purpose how much easier it would be...

As I corrected him on Caste and Jati, he said... every successful company has its tribes that work together...
In every corporation there are Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishya and Brahmana... but they are Varna...
So subscriptions can occur as needed to each of these Varna... based on Guna, Ashrama, etc.
Does this make a company more successful or sustainable? trade-offs?

The question from years ago came back, could Hinduism have (will it survive) without Jati/Varna?
More importantly, even if a belief system gets clarified - a la - "Unifying Hinduism" what about Jati/Varna?

[RamaY]

Pulikesi ji,

Varna-Ashrama dharma only applies in Grihastha-Ashrama so
पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि ॥३॥ (His One Foot has become all these (visible) Worlds, and His Three Feet rests in the Immortal World of the Transcendence.)

The visible foot of Purusha is GrihasthaAshrama. The other Asramas are part of Avyakta (Brahmacharya, Vanapratha & samnyasa).

Will Hinduism survive without varna-Ashrama? Can an individual life be purposeful without procreation? Can an organization survive without Finance/payroll in any shape or form?

It will, but it will remain Avyakta/un-personified. In other words Hinduism will exist hidden in individual actions but not as a coherent social system that can facilitate 'visible/Vyakta' benefits to individuals or societies.

Its like -
Hinduism is a Dharmic system. There exist Hindu Adharmics.
Abrahamism is an Adharmic system. There exist Abrahamic Dharmics.

Hinduism without varna-Ashrama Dharmas is nothing but Abrahamism. There will exist some Dharmics but they are inspite of the of the system while system as a whole remains Adharmic.

[KrishnaK]

You say

Applying the same law to two men, is the same as applying the same medicine to two men. Human drive and behaviour everywhere is the same.

This is precisely why the same medicine of legal penalties must be applied equally to homosexuals and paedophiles. Human (sex) drive and (deviant sexual) behavior is the same and surely the same medicine should be administered. I don't suppose you could have any disagreement with your own prescription

Why is homosexuality deviant ?

[ShauryaT]

The question from years ago came back, could Hinduism have (will it survive) without Jati/Varna?
More importantly, even if a belief system gets clarified - a la - "Unifying Hinduism" what about Jati/Varna?

I have been on record - Without a "living" system of VarnAshrama - Hindusim as a living system will die or is dying. It may become something else but it will not be Hinduism as we have known it for all of our history. Jatis are natural communities not necessarily tied to Varna. It is up to each age to define how to use the Varna divisions for a harmonious society.

[member_22733]

Why is homosexuality deviant ?

Since we are talking in rhetorics here, the question to ask would be:

If homosexuality was still taboo in the west, would it NOT be deviant? If tomorrow pedophilia and bestiality would be ok in the west, would it be deviant?

[brihaspati]

if pedophilia+bestiality has been around for quite some time in the west, and is still not "universal" so it cannot be universal in the future! It is "universally" banned. If it can be mutated then it is not universal.

[A_Gupta]

Action in SD is more critical than belief

OK, THERE's a Core Belief right there!

No, because even if you don't share the belief "action in SD is more critical than belief" it doesn't matter.

[A_Gupta]

Then you go into this notion that if someone asks

What are the core beliefs of Hinduism/SD?

It is the QUESTION that is wrong. Sorry, that is the standard middle-school excuse for not answering questions.

If "religion" does not involve "beliefs", well, what is it then? Of course, ppl here would argue that "Hinduism is not a religion". Well, an Indian Tax Court has agreed, which is why donations to Hindu Temples are not recognized as tax-exempt donations to religious institutions, unlike donations to Churches, Mosques, Pagodas and Synagogues. NICE GOING!!! We are de-recognized in the land where Sanatana Dharma was born. With our total agreement!

Yes, Hinduism is not a religion, in fact, Hindu"ism" does not exist. India is not a Westphalian nation, etc., - yet we have a religion and a nation --- we fall into those structures because of the dominance of the West, and not because these structures are natural to us.

Now we are told that Hindus/SDs have no Beliefs. To follow your soccer/cricket analogy, it is like going out on a soccer field, and using one's hands to punch the ball into the goal, while standing on the other guy's stomach. Why? Oh! Because we can't be asked to follow any Rules of the game!

Back in the day, you don't find Rama asking the newly met Sugriva and Hanuman about their beliefs. This is simply not a question Hindus asked each other. It is the Islamics and Christians who came asking about "what is the belief of these people of India"? If it is them who posed the question, then to answer them, you need to know what they mean by belief.

If you think that "we should follow the FIFA rules on the soccer field" is a belief, then I suggest that you do not understand the question the Islamics and Christians are posing to you.

I suggest even the simple exercise of posing your question in Hindi, equivalent to "what are your core beliefs?" or if you can, in Sanskrit. I think you will find that this is a question best posed in English or other European language.

About laziness, etc., the real laziness is in not understanding the framework within which you are being asked the question.

I can give you only a rough analogy, but consider say, a bunch of city dwellers asking the nomads, what buildings do you dwell in? And the nomads say, we only have tents within which we sleep. And the city dwellers convince the nomads "your tents are buildings". And thereafter the overawed nomads go about talking about their buildings. That is the Hindu that talks about his religion, and asking about core beliefs.

[A_Gupta]

Let me try a different way -- suppose the Christians and Islamics had come around, and instead of asking Hindus "what are your beliefs, what is your religion?" they had asked "what is your philosophy?" Then our ancestors who first answered these questions, would have given exactly the same answers as you give today when you are asked about "Hinduism".

Then by force of custom and linguistic usage, you would be proudly saying today "we only have philosophies, we don't have religions" -- for the very same phenomena that today you are calling a religion.

However, it is the nature of Christians and Islamics - they are compelled by their religions to seek religion in every encounter with other cultures. And thus "Hinduism" was born.

[shiv]

Just had a thought. I borrowed from Balagangadhara when I said that one needs to look at where the questioner is coming from - when he asks you why you worship a god with any arms or with an elephant head.

"Where a person is coming from" is an assessment of what a another person might have on his mind - or what a person believes is "true" or perhaps "universally followed". The question is based on the impression of what he imagines that you might have in your mind.

The origin of the religions Christianity and Islam - which are within recorded memory and thousands of years later than Hindu dharma was at a period in human history when everyone already had some concept of god to believe in. The only change that was brought about by Christianity (and later Islam) was to force a new "belief" that God has an identity "X" and that this is his rule-book. When these religions were invented, there was a choice of believing or not believing and the history of both Christianity and Islam records what was done to those who did not believe. "Unbeliever" is a word that is well known in Christianity and Islam. It is belief in a particular God that is central to both these religions. "Core beliefs" revolve around a God and what that God dictates. "What does your God say?" or "What does your holy book teach you"" or "What do your prophets tell you to believe?" These questions are nonsense from a Hindu viewpoint.

The question "What do I believe" is a fundamental tenet in Christianity and Islam. For those who follow Hindu dharma, it does not depend on belief in a particular god. No one asks you what you believe literally because what particula god you believe is not vitally important question that makes or breaks Hindu dharma. Hindu dharma is a belief in the place you hold, as a human being, a temporary resident in this world, in the order of things in nature and what you need to do to preserve that order. It is not about what a particular god commanded you to do.

Hindu dharma has put in a lot more effort into sustainability and environment friendliness than the religions by not simply putting man at the top of the heap but by saying that man is part of the heap and has a place in that heap along with all life forms.

[shiv]

If homosexuality was still taboo in the west, would it NOT be deviant? If tomorrow pedophilia and bestiality would be ok in the west, would it be deviant?

Homosexuality is no more deviant than paedophilia and bestiality. It's all about man and his free will - which is universally applicable. Which man and whose free will may be a matter of debate.

As an aside, are you aware of an age of consent for goats?

[shiv]

we can each have our beliefs, your actions is all that matter!

Are there any guidelines for action in SD. For example what should be one's attitude towards one's neighbour's wife?

[UlanBatori]

The question on "neighbor's wife" is verboten, since it is sexist. Neighbor's wife presumably lives in neighbor's house, therefore is a neighbor.
Western Universalist philosophy says Love Thy Neighbor. Also, it is Western to be totally Logical because Logic and Rational Thinking were invented by Plato, Socrates and Aristo-Turtle.
Therefore, the only acceptable policy is

Love Thy Neighbor's Wife as Thine Own.

Q.E.D. That is the beauty of Western Logic. I have nooooo idea what SD says. The detailed instructions are probably in Vedic Rks # 7852 - 7857, but can only be understood in the original sounds - ok let's not go there. Sorry, somehow I get the feeling that what is in my dirty mind will be communicated clearly, unambiguously and totally non-verbally across the world.