Understanding Hinduism and Hindu Gods

[seek10]

One of my school friend died and I find this message in my school chat group along with condolences. Thought interesting comparison , leaving aside some obvious local bias.

I can't completely vouch for accuracy of all facts (or context) this author's claim. But, one can get the glimpse of comparative narration goes on ( most probability originated from Brahminical(Intellectual/Nationalistic/Ritualistic) thought process that trickles down. In the West, you have Intellectualism associated with Rationalism (supposed to be inline with measurable objectivity) opposite to Ritualism. Nationalism is independent process in the West. But in group society like India that went through many 'incarnations' with constant adaptions, these Varna (so called long standing division of labor propagated with generations) took this form and can be seen to this day.

WHY RIP IS NOT THE CORRECT FORM OF CONDOLENCE TO A HINDU FAMILY

R.I.P means Rest in Peace-
In Christianity, this short epitaph signifies wishing rest and peace to someone who has died. Christians bury the dead ones and the soul rests in peace in that grave until the judgment day arrives. On the Judgment day, the Lord will decide who goes where- Heaven or Hell. They believe that on the Judgment day the dead will rise again. Until that time, the soul has to remain inside that coffin. Hence the blessing Rest In Peace (until the judgement day)

Now, Hinduism does not have any concept such as that of rising of dead ones. Hinduism believes in reincarnation. It says that the cycle of birth and death are governed by the Karma of individuals. The deceased individual would take another birth based upon the Karma of this life. So there is no rest and hence, the concept of RIP is not valid in Hinduism. Hinduism believes in Moksha that is liberation- Liberation from the endless cycles of birth and death. That’s why instead of using RIP we should say, “Om Shanti” or “Aatma Ko Sadgati Prapt Ho (May Soul attain Moksha)” or simply "Om Sadgati". Sadgati means salvation or liberation. We always pray that may the soul get liberated from the cycle of life and death.

In fact, the concept of RIP would remotely come close to the concept of Preta (Evil, hungry ghosts) which is basically a curse in the Hindu way of life. An individual after leaving his/her body becomes Preta. When we say RIP , we are praying for the soul to remain locked into a standstill on Earth as it becomes Preta for eternity. That’s why in Hindu way of life there is a concept of Terahvin (13 days). For 13 days family members of deceased persuade the Pretas every day with various invocations and offerings requesting them to leave this earth and move on to their next destination which could be either incarnation or salvation (moksha). By saying Om Sadgati we prompt the soul to move on and not remain in 'peace' here..

Share with your next generation why in Hinduism we don't say RIP when we send condolence messages..

 

[seek10]

What is India?

What is this country and how does it survive?, I wondered as a kid looking at the 'mind numbing' amount of diversity (languages, cultures, temperaments, good, bad and ugly). Here is a song that was we grow up with (released in 1988) during a turbulent and transition period (unbeatable Nehru-Gandi Congress dynasty to others) of 80's- In part to the side effect of West's involvement in Afghanistan to counter Soviets.

This video depicts the 'Unity among diversity' of India released after 1988 Indian Independence day (August 15) . It only represents 14 languages out of 22 constitutionally recognized and 122 major languages.

Breakdown of Language Categories​

Category	Count	Notes
Scheduled Languages	22	Constitutionally recognized; used in official and educational domains
Major Languages	122	Spoken by significant populations across states
Other Languages/Dialects	1,599	Includes tribal, regional, and minority languages

​

Video is in local languages (very few knows all languages of India), but English titles gives the idea of each 'identity'.

Modern comedic take on the song with very good analysis of the temperaments (people, politics, culture etc.). Enable subtitles. Some of the translations may be missing in CC when she is 'talking' fast, but when she slows down, you get the crux. Here is language Map you get a feel of it. South Indian states use Dravidian languages (origins goes to Paranthas). Tamil (Kumara Kandam descendants) , which is also dravidian language has their own temperament.

What did world thought about the country in 1947, when British chose to wash their hands in hurry after WW II.

It survived, the credit goes to M.K. Gandhi's chosen successor Nehru ( and the collective suffering), which modern day politically motivated "hyper-nationalized" ruling party tend to ignore.

 

[Voyageur]

R.I.P means Rest in Peace-
In Christianity, this short epitaph signifies wishing rest and peace to someone who has died. Christians bury the dead ones and the soul rests in peace in that grave until the judgment day arrives. On the Judgment day, the Lord will decide who goes where- Heaven or Hell. They believe that on the Judgment day the dead will rise again. Until that time, the soul has to remain inside that coffin. Hence the blessing Rest In Peace (until the judgement day)

Not the way I understood it, seek10, which is not to say there are Christian groups that do think this, and there are. To me it was always about the soul resting in peace, yet from what is being said I can see why Hinduism would not want to think this way - trapped in the grave waiting for judgement.

Looked it up, requiescat in pace, to where might your reference have come from:

History
The phrase was first found on tombstones some time before the fifth century. It became ubiquitous on the tombs of Christians in the 18th century, and for High Church Anglicans, Methodists, as well as Roman Catholics in particular, it was a prayerful request that their soul should find peace in the afterlife. When the phrase became conventional, the absence of a reference to the soul led people to suppose that it was the physical body that was enjoined to lie peacefully in the grave. This is associated with the Christian doctrine of the particular judgment; that is, that the soul is parted from the body upon death, but that the soul and body will be reunited on Judgment Day.

So, there seems to be a particular adapted Judgement doctrine often found in the evangelic dominations, yet also going back in time but not the whole story.

 

[sid]

Not sure I agree with the lady there that the idea of India has worked. I remember that "Mile sur..." song, it was very catchy and would play on TV pretty much every day. The IT boom is due to offshore industry and foreign investment, no effort made on Indian part. Stop that offshoring today and watch the economy tank in hours with all those fancy IT parks closed.

To me, India is as divided today as it was pre-independence or even prior to that where they had multiple kingdoms occasionally raiding each other. Its a vast country with different climates therefore people with shared beliefs can easily arrange themselves into groups of kingdoms without encroaching upon each other too much - the model kinda worked before. Some raiders tried to build a unified India (Bharat) but couldn't sustain it for a long time due to the size of the operations and local cultural differences. Post-independence, one could say that Nehru dynasty managed the division as best as they could, not withstanding the persecutions of Sikhs in the 80s but this seems to have gotten much worse under the Hindu-led BJP government. The BJP have no choice but to establish a Hindu majority population if they want to have their way and do something good but this will cause things to get much worse before they could get better.

 

[seek10]

Post-independence, one could say that Nehru dynasty managed the division as best as they could, not withstanding the persecutions of Sikhs in the 80s but this seems to have gotten much worse under the Hindu-led BJP government. The BJP have no choice but to establish a Hindu majority population if they want to have their way and do something good but this will cause things to get much worse before they could get better.

All statements are correct on their own right. But, IMO, that is only part of the picture. Now a days, there is a "political narration" of BJP vs Congress( Gandhi-Nehru Dynasty) takes many forms including throwing all sorts of dirt on M.K. Gandhi and Nehru for every thing. After looking at one article on my whatsapp group, this is what I posted there.

In the modern day instant WhatsApp university narrations, future is projected on to the past over and over again. Due to this truth is twisted over and over. The reality is simple as to day - every body did what they thought their way of "serving" their perceived goals and winners wrote history - British or Gandhi-Nehru dynasty or current one's. If so, what happened? simple - Ambedkar is a intellectual genius, had bitter struggle with Gandhi Since 1930 round table conference(when Gandhi opposed special status to untouchables inline with Muslims). The idea of using Ambedkar for writing constitution is no-brainer (Idea came from Nehru and Gandhi at the same time), as he proved himself worthy by writing so many proposals by 1947. If it is not for Ambedkar, country would have gone into civil war as the number of cooks of individual ideologies/passions are too many. When the truth of Gandhi's role in choosing Ambedkar was told to Ambedkar in 1956, he was surprised. Gandhi may be 'political shoemaker' (Ambedkar's label to Gandhi), but India benefitted from his strategy. How did I come to this conclusion? Read the following from a man once considered Nehru's right hand man ( his private secretary M. O. Mathai) whose wrote a book called "Reminiscences of the Nehru Age"

A VICTIM OF OBSCURANTISM AND BARBAROUS INTOLERANCE— B. R. AMBEDKAR

Through a friend of mine, P. K. Panikkar, who was a Sanskrit scholar and deeply religious, B. R Ambedkar became interested in me. I had told Panikkar about my admiration for Ambedkar, but added that he just fell short of being a great man by inches because he could not wholly rise above bitterness. However, I said that no one had any right to blame him, having regard to the humiliations and indignities he had to suffer throughout his life. Panikkar, who was a frequent visitor to Ambedkar, obviously reported all this to him. On a Sunday morning Ambedkar rang me up and asked me to tea that evening. He said he had asked Panikkar also. I turned up at the appointed time.

After some pleasantries, Ambedkar told me good-humouredly, "So you have found fault with me; but I am prepared to accept your criticism." Then he talked about untouchability. He said that the railways and factories had done more to combat untouchability than Gandhi's personal campaigns. He- asserted that the real problem of the untouchables was economic and not "temple entry," as advocated by Gandhi.

Ambedkar said, "Our Constitution will, no doubt, abolish untouchability on paper; but it will remain in India as a virus for at least a hundred years. It is deeply embedded in the minds of people." He recalled the abolition of slavery in the United States and said, "The improvement of the condition of the Negroes is slow even after 150 years." I said I couldn't agree with him more and told him the story of my mother. Despite almost 2,000 years of Christianity behind her, she practised untouchability with as much conviction as Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya. She would not allow a Harijan to draw water from our well in summer well water was Obscurantists to the Fore generally scarce. She would rush for a bath if an untouchable came within twenty feet of her.

Then Ambedkar said with pride, "The Hindus wanted the Vedas, and they sent for Vyasa who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic, and they sent for Valmiki who was an untouchable. The Hindus want a Constitution, and they have sent for me." He said, "The greatest tragedy of the Hindi belt in India is that the people of the region discarded Valmiki and installed Tulsidas." He expressed the view that the people of this vast region will remain backward and obscurantist until they replace Tulsidas by Valmiki. He reminded me that, according to the Valmiki Ramayana, "when Rama and Lakshmana arrived at the ashrama of Bharadwaja, the sage assembled a few fattened calves for Rama to choose from to be slaughtered for the feast. So Rama and his entourage were fed on veal; Tulsidas cut out all this." I told him that Vatsyayana, in his Kama Sutra, has prescribed that young couples should be fed on veal for six months before marriage.

Ambedkar pointed his finger at me and said, "You Malayalis have done the greatest harm to this country." I was taken aback and asked him how. He said, "You sent that man Shankaracharya, a desiccated expert at logic, on a padayatra (walking tour) to the north to drive away Buddhism from this country." Ambedkar added that the Buddha was the greatest soul India had ever produced. He also said that the greatest man India produced in. recent centuries was not Gandhi but Swami Vivekananda.

I reminded Ambedkar that "it was Gandhi who suggested to Nehru to invite you to join the government." This was news to him. I amended my statement by saying that the idea struck Gandhi and Nehru simultaneously. It was Ambedkar who piloted the Constitution Bill in the Constituent Assembly.

Ambedkar confided in me that he had decided to become a Buddhist and to advise his followers to do likewise. Until he left Delhi, Ambedkar kept in touch with me. He was a remarkable man who richly deserves the salute of the Indian people.

Despite all the bitterness of the time, every body has their connections in other "camps", talked, listened, expressed their views and did what they thought is "right". This is what sustained the country.

There are different angles to this picture. As usual, power corrupts, all sorts of political considerations (group biases for electoral purposes) facilitates all the divisions. Now a days, there is over glorification of victims of Gandhi-Nehru rule. Rehabilitation of the "victims" is needed and understandable, but this mud slinging ignores giving credit where it is due.

Nehru believed it is his destiny to keep the country united, he kept it that way whatever the piece he got. Now a days, people criticize Gandhi for giving the control to Nehru instead of Vallabhai Patel. What they forget is Patel is already old man (and often sick) though he is the "Iron man" who kept all pieces together (Gandhi considered only Patel can do that job). Patel wanted to go against Mao in support of Tibet, when China invaded Tibet. If that happened, my guess is, China would have won and the India wouldn't have been same. Nehru kept Patel at bay w.r.t Kashmir and Tibet. Nehru's strategy of managing the Kashmir his independence Camrad 'Shiekh Abdullah' didn't give intended results, at least safe enough until late 80's before it gone out of control after that (Thanks to Afghan war).

Each has their part of keeping the country as it is now - Gandhi ( sending British back - he kept close eye on British politics, strategized accordingly), Patel (uniting the pieces) and Nehru for giving much needed stability for 17 years after that( though there is no magical economic improvement and pumped Gandhi image(As per Ambedkar's assessment)). One only needs to look at the Pakistan, what happens to a country if there is no stability during the early stages of birth.

 

[sid]

@seek10, that's a good little excerpt about Rama being fed meat - the Hindus would be out with their bamboo brooms, sticks and pitch-forks if someone ever mentioned that in the mainstream.

The challenge with India as always is the lack of foundational knowledge either via religion or way of scientific progress. The place is fully compromised due to the sick ideologies, fake priests, superstitions and sociopathic behaviours exacerbated by a miserably poor majority polulace. IMO, India reached their peak during Chanakya-Asoka times and probably again under the Guptas rule but later, went backwards (a lot) under Mughal invasion and before they could emerge from it, the British invaded and codified the old caste system into some of the Indian laws.

The Britsh couldn't instigate much Christian values in the populace as wasn't their original intention and rather, revived a bastardised form of Hinduism which is now morphing into a very Islam-type religion with radical values. Hinduism wasn't even technically considered a religion but rather "a way of living".

Whatever form of India was left behind post-independence was always going to be a difficult one to govern with competing religo-political segments and certain princely families still harbouring dreams of personal sultanates. Heck, its only been 75-odd years since independence therefore, let's see how the beast grows and what it evolves into.

One thing I would suggest is that Indians should stop deluding themselves over our rich history and religions since none of that is well known or followed. Its not even the same Rama we follow or understand that existed. Hinduism as adoped by modern populace, by and large is only about 200 years old. And, yes, Budhism was and is the greatest religion in India for what it did.

One only needs to look at the Pakistan, what happens to a country if there is no stability during the early stages of birth.

True though I sometimes look at them and conclude that they are a little ahead of India when it comes to general cohesiveness and art productions. Maybe all that internal strife and suffering leads to more creative juices flowing. The problem with Pakistan is that they are first and foremost an Islamic nation therefore will invite all the anti-Islam sentiments that come naturally. Their position next to China and India also means that they will be subjected to intererence from the Western powers for their own strategic reasons. For that reason alone, they will not be allowed to prosper too much.