Topic: Hinduism Intro

[Michael]

I'm going to write some general points in here that give an overview of how the Hindu system works.

However first I will list some books that Julie has suggested are valid sources for more in depth understanding of this highly complex religion.

The Speaking Tree, by Richard Lannoy.

Klostermaier, K., A Survey of Hinduism, 2nd edition, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1994.

Powell, B., Windows into the Infinite: A Guide to the Hindu Scriptures, Asian Humanities Press, Fremont, 1996.

Radhakrishnan, S. & Moore, C. (eds), A Source Book in Indian Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Bombay, 1957.

Another famous author is Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, but unfortunately in our modern secular day, his writings have now been case as 'romantic'. This is all to do with the notion of 'Orientalism' which became a very fashionable concept for awhile - I think its influence is now decreasing. Personally I liked Coomaraswamy's writings.

(Basically Orientalism says that you can't say non-western cultures are different, because that is used pejoratively, to dimisish them - ie 'they're not like us, you know'. But also you can't say they are the same either as that also devalues their uniqueness. Orientalism tried to stop people from becoming romantic about non-western cultures, but unfortunately it also robbed scholars from recognising that people from different cultures really do see the world differently.

Julie had a lot of trouble with this, in her thesis, as she wanted to demonstrate the idea of Maya resulted in a very different view of life and the world - one that had significant value to us in a world that is becoming more uncertain. There is a huge body of work around the whole concept of how one 'examines' another culture, plus the value of being 'inside' or 'outside'. It is a complex area, but personally I see the ability to enter into the world view of another culture, essential for us on the path. And if a little romanticism helps, then go for it!)

[Michael]

Hinduism has a few major classic texts:

Of all these, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the top as far as Indian people are concerned - esp the Ramayana, which is shorter, and there are numerous translations.

The Ramayana

The Ramayana of Valmiki, Hari Prasad Shastri (trans.), Shanti Sadan, London, 1976.

‘Ramayan of Valmiki’, Ralph T. H. Griffith (trans.), 1870-1874, Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/index.htm

The Mahabharata

Mahabharata, C. Rajagopalachari (trans. from the Tamil), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 2001.

‘The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vasal’, Kisan Mohan Ganguli (trans.), 1883 – 1896, Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm

The Mahabharata: An English Version Based on Selected Verses, Chakravarthi V. Narasimhan (trans.), Columbia University Press, New York, 1965.

The Bhagavad-Gita (from the Mahabharata)

The Bhagavad Gita, Juan Mascaro (trans.), Penguin Classics, Harmondsworth, 1962.

The Bhagavad Gita, R. C. Zaehner (trans.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972.

‘The Bhagavad-Gita’, Edwin Arnold (trans.), 1885, Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/index.htm

Natyashastra, Vols. 1-4, N. P. Unni, (trans.), Nag Publishers, Delhi, 1998. (this is their great sacred book of dance)

The Upanishads
The Principal Upanishads, S. Radhakrishnan (trans. and ed.) George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1978.

“The Upanishads”, Part I, ‘Sacred Books of the East’ Vol. I, Max Muller (trans.) 1879, Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/index.htm

“The Upanishads” Part II, ‘Sacred Books of the East’ Vol I, Max Muller (trans.) 1884, Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/index.htm

The Rig Veda

‘The Rig Veda’, Ralph T. H. Griffith (trans.), 1896, Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi01.htm   

The Rig Veda: An Anthology, revised edition, W. D. O’Flaherty (trans.), Penguin Books, New Delhi, 2000.

Others:
‘The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: The Threads of Union’, BonGiovanni (trans.), Sacred-Texts: Hinduism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm

These Yoga Sutras form the basis of almost all serious eastern spiritual development - it is a core text.

[Angela]

Thanks Michael!

[TIOTIT]

1. Why do we light a lamp?
In almost every Indian home a lamp is lit daily before the altar of the Lord. In some houses it
is lit at dawn, in some, twice a day – at dawn and dusk – and in a few it is maintained
continuously - Akhanda Deepa. All auspicious functions commence with the lighting of the
lamp, which is often maintained right through the occasion.
Light symbolizes knowledge, and darkness - ignorance. The Lord is the "Knowledge Principle"
(Chaitanya) who is the source, the enlivener and the illuminator of all knowledge. Hence
light is worshiped as the Lord himself.
Knowledge removes ignorance just as light removes darkness. Also knowledge is a lasting
inner wealth by which all outer achievement can be accomplished. Hence we light the lamp
to bow down to knowledge as the greatest of all forms of wealth.
Why not light a bulb or tube light? That too would remove darkness. But the traditional oil
lamp has a further spiritual significance. The oil or ghee in the lamp symbolizes our vaasanas
or negative tendencies and the wick, the ego. When lit by spiritual knowledge, the vaasanas
get slowly exhausted and the ego too finally perishes. The flame of a lamp always burns
upwards. Similarly we should acquire such knowledge as to take us towards higher ideals.
Whilst lighting the lamp we thus pray:
Deepajyothi parabrahma
Deepa sarva tamopahaha
Deepena saadhyate saram
Sandhyaa deepo namostute
I prostrate to the dawn/dusk lamp; whose light is the Knowledge Principle (the Supreme
Lord), which removes the darkness of ignorance and by which all can be achieved in life.

[Jennifer-]

1. Why do we light a lamp?
In almost every Indian home a lamp is lit daily before the altar of the Lord. In some houses it
is lit at dawn, in some, twice a day – at dawn and dusk – and in a few it is maintained
continuously - Akhanda Deepa. All auspicious functions commence with the lighting of the
lamp, which is often maintained right through the occasion.
Light symbolizes knowledge, and darkness - ignorance. The Lord is the "Knowledge Principle"
(Chaitanya) who is the source, the enlivener and the illuminator of all knowledge. Hence
light is worshiped as the Lord himself.
Knowledge removes ignorance just as light removes darkness. Also knowledge is a lasting
inner wealth by which all outer achievement can be accomplished. Hence we light the lamp
to bow down to knowledge as the greatest of all forms of wealth.
Why not light a bulb or tube light? That too would remove darkness. But the traditional oil
lamp has a further spiritual significance. The oil or ghee in the lamp symbolizes our vaasanas
or negative tendencies and the wick, the ego. When lit by spiritual knowledge, the vaasanas
get slowly exhausted and the ego too finally perishes. The flame of a lamp always burns
upwards. Similarly we should acquire such knowledge as to take us towards higher ideals.
Whilst lighting the lamp we thus pray:
Deepajyothi parabrahma
Deepa sarva tamopahaha
Deepena saadhyate saram
Sandhyaa deepo namostute
I prostrate to the dawn/dusk lamp; whose light is the Knowledge Principle (the Supreme
Lord), which removes the darkness of ignorance and by which all can be achieved in life.

 

[Michael]

This question often arises in regard to Hinduism - do we take all these Gods and Goddesses as internal or external - are they only outer representations of internal aspects of our psyche, or do they actually exist independently, as real forces in the world?

This question often comes from western countries. Eastern cultures do not have much of a problem either way. The reason is that in the West, we have been influenced by ‘the Enlightenment’. This began around 1700 in Europe, and transformed the way western cultures saw the world. One result was a movement away from seeing the world mythologically, to a pragmatic material view.

Great benefits were bestowed from the Enlightenment - one could say it emancipated humanity from superstition. It laid the foundation of the tremendous material wealth (and poverty) which flowed from a technical-scientific-egalitarian conceptualisation of the world around us and our place in it. For example, no longer do we have to tremble in fear when we dig into the earth, for mining and agriculture.

The consequence of this has been a relegation of religion to an internal faith realm. So it is only natural when a western person encounters the religiosity of India, to feel assaulted and sceptical. ‘Assaulted’ is a word I choose to describe the condition I have observed many times of western travellers in India, who begin to show the strains of a constant ‘assault’ of religious and spiritual content in every single thing around them - there is no escape. We are not accustomed to this level of permeation of the mythical layer in our lives.

‘Sceptical’ is the word I apply to those westerners who have not travelled to India, and see an ocean of very weird stuff in Hinduism - and they don’t know half of it!

Westerners have a great advantage and a great disadvantage when dealing with Eastern religious thought. Due to our low tolerance of all the cheesy embellishments that Eastern religions pepper their spiritual world and ceremonies, we seek the raw guts of the traditions. This has led to a purification process in Buddhism - the most successful of Eastern religions to transmigrate to the West.

Hinduism has not been affected by this at all, and stubbornly carries on regardless of either the secular world to which it travels, or the secularisation of the Indians who carry their religion with them. Indians are highly accomplished schizophrenics - they are perfectly happy to uphold diametrically opposing paradigms within them, without a hint of concern for the accusation of hypocrisy.

Alexandra David-Neel wrote one of the best Buddhism introduction books ever written, and she had never left France. She later travelled as a reformer through Buddhist lands, very displeased with the popularist versions of Buddhism she encountered. Until after some time, she went across herself to their more complex and ‘mixed’ versions, as they were just too attractive for anyone with a mystical bent.

Westerners tend to go straight for the philosophical essence of Buddhism, which would seem to me to not displease Buddha at all. However if you travel to Buddhist countries you will find things quite different. As you would expect, those cultures have a Buddhism which functions as a popular religion, but along with this comes all the flesh and blood that Buddhism brings to a culture. Missing out on that part is the disadvantage, and in Buddhism it is a sad omission as the cultural aspect is very beautiful and enjoyable.

Both Buddhism and Hinduism can be interpreted internally. In fact that is what is expected. These are religions of ‘moksha’. Totally dedicated to the individual’s enlightenment. Buddhism is more obvious in this regard, due to Buddha’s rejection of the Gods as being of much use for his essential purpose. So all the deities in Buddhism are symbols of inner archetypes. However, they still do have external existence in some form, depending on the type of Buddhism and the culture.

Hinduism is more complex. The whole internal/external debate is well established in Hinduism. Everything is to be taken as internal, when adopting the sadhaka’s stance. This is in all those traditions within Hinduism where aspirants work actively and dedicatedly towards the full achievement of moksha. Tantra and Yoga are obvious examples.

There is an esoteric meaning to every story and character, mostly applied to the Kundalini process. In fact, each God has a ‘place-holding’ name in the energetic structure of their cosmography. Actually there are two names - one for the inner principle, and one for the external principle. The universe is taken as reflected from out to in and visa-versa. When I speak of Hindu concepts and Gods here, I am almost always referring to their inner archetype. I may write something more explanatory on this, so you can see, but for a quick take: Brahman is Nagual, Maya Tonal, Shiva is the constant inner realised AP, Vishnu the outer manifested realised ‘person-in-the-world’ AP.

That’s all fine and dandy, but unfortunately its not that simple. After having travelled in India over many years, I have acquired the ability to meet the Gods. I can only say that inspite of these being inner archetypes, I have no way to explain that they do exist in India. Now what am I meeting? Does it have an energetic essence?

There are numerous possibilities. One is that India has such an affect on a person, that it causes the inner principle to become manifested externally. There is a good deal of truth in this.

Another is that after thousands of years of people worshiping a God-form, it becomes independently activated, and then roams the streets and temples. That is also very likely.

Another is that the inner principle also exists externally - a mysterious reflection. This is the orthodox view.

You should realise that Indians worship in ways that are alien to Western people. They worship with their whole being. They worship with smell, touch, taste, visuals, the lot. They call it rasa. It is well documented, and incorporated into their culture in all ways. They roll like honey bees in the nectar of their gods - it is a full sensual experience.

Once I understood this, I became more relaxed about what was a God and what wasn’t. I just joined in with the whole mysterious yet viscerally satisfying parade. They want you to drop your intellectual schemes, and just come roll and dance with them. Unfortunately, it’s not all fun - far from it.

Ultimately I have to say, our neat little scheme of internal Vs. external, breaks down the further you explore the Mystery.

[Jennifer-]

Excellent post M, thank you.

[Angela]

This question often arises in regard to Hinduism - do we take all these Gods and Goddesses as internal or external - are they only outer representations of internal aspects of our psyche, or do they actually exist independently, as real forces in the world?

I've pondered much about this as I read of different religions.  Each religion has it's own God/Gods.  The Egyptians seem to be attracting my attention in how they manifested their gods.  I tend to lean towards the internal force, the "spiritual" in man, transforming that force into his perception of the "material" side of the religion and what we see in the tonal.  But...the source of the internal manifestation actually originated as external and labeled by man as "God"/"Goddess" of____...fill in the blank.  I see the external force as being a part of us too...a series of manifestations reflecting in a circle.  A continual creation/evolution process where we are actually "creating" ourselves with ourselves.  It's like the inside-out you mention.  At a previous time, the external force was created internally.  Like when a prophet spoke to a God...it was a reflection of himself...were there external forces involved?  Yes, but the prophet was a reflection of those external forces.   Hope this makes sense...words never seem to do justice of what we actually see.  It looks and feels like something VanGogh would have painted...

A

[Jennifer-]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm

1.27. God's voice is Om.

1.28. The repetition of Om should be made with an understanding of its meaning.

1.29. From that is gained introspection and also the disappearance of obstacles.

1.30. Disease, inertia, doubt, lack of enthusiasm, laziness, sensuality, mind-wandering, missing the point, instability- these distractions of the mind are the obstacles.

1.31. Pain, despair, nervousness, and disordered inspiration and expiration are co-existent with these obstacles.

1.32. For the prevention of the obstacles, one truth should be practiced constantly.

1.33. By cultivating friendliness towards happiness and compassion towards misery, gladness towards virtue and indifference towards vice, the mind becomes pure.


1.34. Optionally, mental equanimity may be gained by the even expulsion and retention of energy.

1.35. Or activity of the higher senses causes mental steadiness.

1.36. Or the state of sorrowless Light.

1.37. Or the mind taking as an object of concentration those who are freed of compulsion.

1.38. Or depending on the knowledge of dreams and sleep.

1.39. Or by meditation as desired.

1.40. The mastery of one in Union extends from the finest atomic particle to the greatest infinity.

1.41. When the agitations of the mind are under control, the mind becomes like a transparent crystal and has the power of becoming whatever form is presented. knower, act of knowing, or what is known.

1.42. The argumentative condition is the confused mixing of the word, its right meaning, and knowledge.

1.43. When the memory is purified and the mind shines forth as the object alone, it is called non-argumentative.

1.44. In this way the meditative and the ultra-meditative having the subtle for their objects are also described.

1.45. The province of the subtle terminates with pure matter that has no pattern or distinguishing mark.

1.46. These constitute seeded contemplations.

1.47. On attaining the purity of the ultra-meditative state there is the pure flow of spiritual consciousness.

1.48. Therein is the faculty of supreme wisdom.

1.49. The wisdom obtained in the higher states of consciousness is different from that obtained by inference and testimony as it refers to particulars.

1.50. The habitual pattern of thought stands in the way of other impressions.

1.51. With the suppression of even that through the suspension of all modifications of the mind, contemplation without seed is attained.

End Part One.

[Michael]

the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali should be read with a detailed commentary. This is a translation in English - an attempt to convey the overall meaning. However, these sutras use Sanskrit, a language dedicated to the most profound understanding of the deeper journey of our being.

Thus you will find that where Patanjali uses one word, a whole chapter can be written on its meaning. Actually it is the fullness of meaning of each term, that carries the message.

Nonetheless, let me say the crucial point of Patanjali, is that we extend and withdraw - out from the centre core. Just as the breath moves out from stillness, into in and out breathing, so we use this to reach the ultimate.

Centred in the absolute stillness, we allow our journey outward, into the world - of action, but in meditation, more of thought. Then we pull back into the core again. It is the constant returning to the core, which is a compressed reflection of our larger journey of life and death, that we reduce the outward movements more and more till they are but a glimmer, from the absolute.

(that's what the men do, says Julie, while the women go about cleaning up after everyone)

[Michael]

I've pondered much about this as I read of different religions.  Each religion has it's own God/Gods.  The Egyptians seem to be attracting my attention in how they manifested their gods.  I tend to lean towards the internal force, the "spiritual" in man, transforming that force into his perception of the "material" side of the religion and what we see in the tonal.  But...the source of the internal manifestation actually originated as external and labeled by man as "God"/"Goddess" of____...fill in the blank.  I see the external force as being a part of us too...a series of manifestations reflecting in a circle.  A continual creation/evolution process where we are actually "creating" ourselves with ourselves.  It's like the inside-out you mention.  At a previous time, the external force was created internally.  Like when a prophet spoke to a God...it was a reflection of himself...were there external forces involved?  Yes, but the prophet was a reflection of those external forces.   Hope this makes sense...words never seem to do justice of what we actually see.  It looks and feels like something VanGogh would have painted...

A

yes you are getting the idea - it is beyond easy grasp.
recall don Juan made a good comment - we can see it all as internal, or all as external. doesn't matter in the end. but he had a preference for internal. that meant he saw the world as a reflection, on the inner walls of his shell.

this is probably the best understanding from a principle position, but i have found once we dive into the distinctions between inner and outer, we run into complexities that are not so easy to grasp.

R Steiner made a curious comment, when describing the difference between sound and thought. Sound remains beyond the 'threshold'. The spirits of thought crossed that threshold, and thus we now feel our thoughts are our own, yet we sense sounds as coming from 'out there'.

He has a lot on this historical transition, and places the moment around the time of the Greek writings, when humans began to 'own' their thoughts, instead of seeing them as gifts from outside - from the depths of the universe. this was the beginning of 'human' oriented writing as opposed to religious or archetypal writing, where the gods spoke and we just listened. Now we listen to other humans speaking, and have lost the ear for the words of the Gods.

[Angela]

Now we listen to other humans speaking, and have lost the ear for the words of the Gods.

This reminds me of a site I visited while cruising around the Internet, and to this day, I can’t relocate it.  It was a shamanism site and the writer was talking about how speech first developed. That we communicated telepathically and didn’t start to vocalize our thoughts until we wanted to “cover them up”, or not be truthful.  As if we began speaking to distract whomever we were communicating with, from seeing our true thoughts.  Communication was internal.  I notice this in Dreaming…I communicate telepathically, and then as I evolved in my dreaming abilities, I learned to speak.  Tonal bleeding over into dreaming.  What’s weird is that I’ve noticed my first vocalization in dreaming was fluent Spanish, which I don’t do in normal time.  I can understand quite a bit, as I took five years of formal Spanish in junior high and high school, and am able to get along, but not to the extent I’m able in dreaming.

I understand much more from seeing and feeling a person than I am from listening to their words.  There is so much behind the verbal word, and the written word for that matter…where you find someone’s true essence.  I know everyone here has been communicating in this forum medium for many years and it took me a while to understand and see what people were actually trying to convey.  And, for myself to communicate efficiently to convey my own thoughts and feelings…usually impossible to do with only written word.  But when combining that Essence of the person with the writing, it’s truly amazing what you’re able to See.  At little bit of Magic. 

[Jahn]

This reminds me of a site I visited while cruising around the Internet, and to this day, I can’t relocate it.  It was a shamanism site and the writer was talking about how speech first developed. That we communicated telepathically and didn’t start to vocalize our thoughts until we wanted to “cover them up”, or not be truthful. 

By telepathy that's how one talk with animals, and it is done in images and sensations.

Telepathy is also how naguals communicate across the world.

Welcome to my world.

[Jennifer-]

Thus you will find that where Patanjali uses one word, a whole chapter can be written on its meaning. Actually it is the fullness of meaning of each term, that carries the message.

Yes, I quickly discovered that 'snipping' was nearly impossible.

[Jennifer-]

Ive been reading all of these slowly.. its hard to sit at the computer for very long and it seems to be something that slow is good anyway..

This has been lovely thus far..

RÁMÁYAN OF VÁLMÍKI
RALPH T. H. GRIFFITH, M. A.,
[1870-1874]

The Ramayana