Hinduism is the biggest bane for India. We have inherited it and we have to live with it.
To understand why we should stop being Hindus the way it is defined today, please read on. Unless the basic tenets of the religion is revised, it is not right to be Hindus. That is why even great thinkers like Ambedkar changed religion and became a Buddhist and asked all his followers to embrace Buddhism. He was right because he knew he cannot correct the mistakes in Hinduism. Here are the main reasons why it is not the right one.
1. Hinduism espouses Slavery
According to Hinduism (read Geeta and Mahabharatha and various other Hindu documents), the sudras are made to serve the other three castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas). While defining the jobs of the castes, the document considered the Bible of the Hinduism states that Brahmins are the people who 'possess' everything. God has made everything for the Brahmin. He has to learn the vedas and practice it. Kshatriyas should keep the Brahmins happy and rule the kingdom in line with the vedas. Vaisyas will do the trading. And the rest of the people (read sudras) should serve these three communities. There is no other purpose of their existence. What do you call this? It is slavery in the guise of religion. If the so called Hindu exponents are really interested in harmony, they should remove these lines which occur in more than one place all over geeta and mahabharatha. These were obviously inserts made during the later days of caste movement. Using this nearly 80% of the people were held slaves to the rest and the same is being tried today.
The worst is that this slavery is not accepted by the people who are on the top. At least in the case of the Negros of the US, the whites accepted there is slavery. But here this was not accepted. And this is the cause of the major problems. The classes who enslave others work against the liberation of such enslaved masses even today. What disheartening scene is this?
To add one more, women are considered slaves of the men! It is high time these thoughts are removed as well.
2. Hinduism has always implemented caste system and made comebacks.
Most of the religions of India were born mostly against the caste system. For instance, the Jainism and the Buddhism. But over a period of time, the caste system was reincarnated and these relligions were thrown out of Indian populace. On most occasions, this was achieved by pushing forward 'fear' of God and that these are 'God's own words'. No body could question it. That was how you are made. You are made this way because you are 'destined' to be that. You have sinned in your previous births. Therefore, you are born a sudra. What sin you committed nobody knows. It is fate that hangs over your heads. While next birth and not sinning in the current birth might be a motivator to live life properly, this was misused by the later day purohits to promote their own concept of Hinduism. You are today what you are because of your previous birth's sins. Therefore, you will have to struggle and suffer. Hinduism made a slow and steady come back by preaching a solution to the sufferings of today and killing numerous Jains and Buddhists. Every one in the top 20% gained but for the poor sudras who made up the remaining 80%.
3. Hinduism was never accepted by any other group of people
I want to stress the fact that from India, Buddhism and Jainism went all over the world. Do you think Hinduism did not go anywhere else? Whereas Buddhism and Jainism were accepted, Hinduism was not accepted. VAriations of Buddhism was created and are state religions in more countries than you will find Hinduism in. The primary reason is this. Hinduism cheats and enslaves majority of the people. It is high time we stopped the progress of this religion.
4. Hinduism kills
As in the case of Muslims, Hinduism also has a clause that allows you to kill people who are not in line with the vedic thought. More than one lakh Jains were slaughtered by the Hindus during the middle ages to further their cause. Jainism was very powerful in those days when the preachings of Mahaveeera took the country by storm. More people converted to it and slowly the Hindu population was getting reduced. So how do you stop it? The Hindu priests would call the Jains for a discussion or argument. If they lose the argument then they will be lanced. A number of such locations where thousands of such jains were lanced and left to the vultures are still marked and noted. I have visited some of them in Tamil Nadu recently. Lakhs are a huge number in those days when the country's population ran into less than a crore. Where as Jains never killed the Hindus, the Hindus always did. According to the tradition and the teachings of Geeta, a Brahmin can use a sword to kill an opponent when he is threatened or the vedas are threatened. What more permission do you want to kill the other people?
There is a strong come back of Hindu principles again in the Indian society today. There are a number of places where the Hindu doctrines are being reinforced and said in a way that these are the right way to live. I have found articles in this forum itself which espouses caste system as the best way to live in a society. How can a divided and majority enslaved society be the right society? How can a society that does not allow equal rights to every one be the right one? Don't you think that Hinduism and its false preachers are given a fitting reply and made to rehash their documents to match what is required today?
Or we should all change over to Buddhism like what Ambedkar did after the government failed in controlling the Hindu fanaticism.
Every religion has been and is dangerous.
No religion should be read as the literal truth. While I do not agree with the caste system, I certainly think there is symbolic and poetic value in the forms of Hindu myth. I've personally learned (or at least, grown) from considering the image of Shiva, the cosmic dancer. Likewise, I don't think the bible espouses a healthy view of women or even of man's place in the world, but considering the trinity can lead to the same sort of mystic realization as considering Shiva.
The trick is to remember that these are symbols, works of art. They are not historical fact. It's a trick that's very tricky for many people. I would say Hinduism itself is not dangerous, but that it is dangerous to apply a literal interpretation of it.
It seems to me to be rather obvious that religious teachings should not be taken literally on literal matters. i think anyone that reads the Vedas as a science text book should have their head examined. But i think the issue is a lot more grey than you're making it out to be. It is easy for a non-believer to just label all of the Vedas (and/or the Bible) as art, but there are millions of people that sincerely believe that these texts are divinely inspired and designed to guide their lives to be better. For those people, you have to be more subtle.
Statements of fact about the physical universe that are made in religious teachings are easy to simply dismiss as allegory. It doesn't take much thought to simply say "anything the Vedas say about physics/biology/astronomy/taxonomy/history is allegorical, but 'the message' is still valid". Although i'm sure some people will dispute interpreting their pet religious text as allegory in that manner, even they will not object to interpreting other religious texts like that. Once you eliminate religious bias, it's not really a controversial position.
But does it really work? Let's take the Hinduism for example - and while i don't really agree that the Vedas really say that much about the caste system or the subjugation of Shudra (if any), let's pretend that everything rshanthakumar said is true.
Suppose there were two passages in one of the Vedas that said:
1.) "Shudra must serve the other castes."
2.) "Rape is wrong."
Now, neither statement is a statement about the physical universe, so neither one can be dismissed as allegory in the way i described above. Both are moral lessons. Obviously (to most of us, at least), one is right and one is wrong... but how can you tell which using the Vedas? You'll find that you can't, because the Vedas - like all religious texts - will not say "this moral is good and this moral is not". They will pass off all the moral teachings as valid, and usually as divinely inspired.
So how do we come to the conclusion that one is right and one is wrong? The answer is that we use external moral guides to make that decisions. We have reasons outside of the Vedas for determining that rape is wrong. We have no such reasons for the other rule.
So in the end, you don't really use the teaching of the Vedas as a rule book. You use something else, outside of the Vedas. The same is true for every religion.
As long as you keep that in mind - for any religion, Hinduism included - the religion is not a problem for anyone. The problem is that in most cases, people believe that there is no external guide... and that all morality does come from the religion... and therefore they try to follow all (or as many as possible) of the rules of the religion... even the idiotic ones. Even worse, they try to justify following those idiotic rules by pointing out that the same religious text has good rules... as if somehow having a few good rules means all the rules must be good.
So while just saying that the content of religious texts are symbols and art works for non-believers, for believers you have to be more subtle. You have to show them that while there's nothing wrong with using the text as guidance, they must ultimately use their head to decide at what points they should depart from the teachings of the religion. Unfortunately, you will find that a hard sell to most religious people.
There is nothing particularly evil about Hinduism - at least no more so than any religion. i disagree with rshanthakumar's assertions about the level of Vedic support for the caste system, and i disagree with his implication that any of this crap really goes on today in any serious measure, except in isolated backward areas. Yes, there are some lingering remnants of the old system, but they are being gradually eroded away by more progressive attitudes (this resurgence of orthodox Hinduism he speaks of is really partly a backlash to that). So long as Hindus (and this goes for any religion in general) remember to temper the teachings of their religion with a bit of ordinary secular common sense, there's no real harm.
You are mistaken a lot... First, let me inform you that there is no religion called Hinduism. Its a wrond notation as it refers to a large group of people living in India and certain other countries. Hinduism is just a way of life followed by people of older India, especially the Sindh civilization. The religion is actually called "Sanathana Dharma" in Sanskrit...
I am an Indian and Hindu by birth. All people of this land will be called as Hindus, even they are are following religions like Islam, Christianity, Budhism etc... You need to read and research a lot to get the exact idea.
Indi, true! Even if the religion says that the earth is flat, people are not going to accept it today. Many things that the religions espouse when they get disproved, they lose their sway on the public faith. However, there are so many unknowns in the world today that in the name of faith a number of varied thoughts get spread across the world.
Every religion has its own dogmas that the people do not vouch for with their common sense.
Allegorical interpretations are the ones that are building Nastrodemus today. God knows what he really meant in his texts! Most of the religions had allegorical references possibly to way of life; for scietific reasoning it was too heavy to presume such a system! Questionable rather.
For every new invention that happens in the west, there is always a new allegorical story that comes up in the east saying that it is already present in the vedas. I wonder what is not present! if every thing is present why is it then these are not said before they are invented or discovered.
Exactly, and the only time there's a problem is when people choose the dogma over rationality. As you say, it would be absurd to believe that the world is flat because your religion says so... but that's exactly how the Flat Earth Society came to be. People chose the teachings of the religion even when they contradicted the evidence of observing reality.
In the specific case of Hinduism (and assuming that the Vedas do support the idea of dalits and castes and whatnot), basic reason tells you that treating people as inferiors just because of whatever imaginary caste they happen to be in is a stupid idea, and that it makes people suffer unnecessarily. So if you have the Vedas telling you one thing, and reason telling you another, the only right thing to do is to choose reason... every single time. Anytime you have a conflict between what your religion teaches and what reason and reality tell you, it is always going to be wrong to choose the religion, every time.
In general, you should always let ratinonality guide you first, religion second, if at all. Anything else is dangerous. Some people conclude from that that all religion is wrong, but i disagree. You should never, ever choose religion over reason... but reason doesn't cover everything. In those places where reason doesn't give an answer, i - personally - don't see anything wrong with turning to religion.
Some people are inherently better than some others. You need to understand that.
A recent study found that:
1. The Asians have the highest IQ
2. The Europeans have higher IQ
3. Africans have the lower IQ
Don't call me a racists as I am just quoting the results here. Checkout the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Also remember these are statistics, nothing to do with one particular person.
If you have dumb genes, no one can help you and I bet you will give it to your kids as well (and even God can't save them). What is however not clear is whether "we" should take care of the problem or let nature do it's course! I think we should not have slavery and simply let nature take it's course.
Hinduism is just another religion, all religions are small minded, arbitrary and will not evolve. So simply get on with your life. There are bigger and better problems to be solved...
If Asians have the highest IQ why is that there are only 2 out of 10 inventions happening in the east when compared to the west. IQ itself is not a good test for rational thnking or for that matter thinking itself. There are lots of disputes on the way IQ tests work and the ways they do not work too!
Why do you think Africans almost always win the marathon races across the world? They are physically better! it is just that the human races continuously evolves and each one has mastered whatever skills were needed for him or her. Now, if the race is exposed to the specific kind of practice that is needed, they will also come up and match the levels of any other race.
I give this example in one of the panel discussions. But this was about reservation and affirmative actions in various countries. This might be valid for your thinking too. Pl read on!
A farmer planted 100 trees in his farm. He found that ten of the trees are fruiting very well. He thought he should water these ten well; use appropriate fertilisers and manures to ensure that they continue to grow well and provide him with high yield. And so they did!
As a good farmer, what he should also do is, find out why the other 90 trees are not fruiting well. If only he finds that out and brings them on par with these 10 trees, he will have 10 times more output. It might mean extra effort from his end; may be even at the cost of these 10 trees, he might concentrate on the remaining 90 to bring them all up and start fruiting very well.
That is what is happening when you want to bring all the races at par. It is not in accepting that only 10 are good and the rest are bad. So you live with the 10. But in identifying why the 90 are bad and why not make them as good as the ten!? That is what will make a good and equitable society in this world.
You can thank years of slavery and forced labor for that.
This is a terrible analogy. Here's why:
1) Perhaps the 10 trees are special for some genetic reason in which case the thing to do might be take cuttings from them and replace the other 90.
2) Perhaps the cost of fertiliser and manure is higher than the profit from the fruit, in which case the thing to do might be to dig-up the other 90 trees and just keep the 10.
3) Perhaps the environmental damage from the fertiliser means that the 10 trees will produce the increased yield for only a few years and then die, whilst the other 90 trees produce their smaller yields indefinitely. Here the thing to do might be to ditch the fertiliser completely.
No - there is no gender equality
That is what i voted for.
Apart from that, the caste system etc. Its not a simple thing. A lot of facotrs, i reckon it is not equal religion
Good analysis, Chris!
May be I missed out on 'All things being equal' at the beginning of the para! But then, in reality all things are not really equal. Going further into the analogy, in rice for instance, there were more than 400000 varieties in the world about 800 years back. Today there are only 40000to 50000 basic varieties available. The rest have vanished from the surface of the earth because they are not useful to man!
The idea of killing plant strains that are not useful to man has been his way of working. This has happened with the extinction of a large number of animals too. And what you are suggesting is something that people fear and could happen with humans as well. The Fascist principles, really!
As to fertiliser or no fertiliser that might not be the real question.
It doesnt matter if u r a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist etc. And adopting to any religion cant change anything just because something different is written in that religion's text material.
The religion is all in ur mind and thinking. So no point in condemning any religion or its thoughts. Everything evolves, so does religions and it takes time and positive and open eyed thinking.
And yes, there is no point in going by Literal meaning of the religious texts, u have got a brain bfore any religion and if thts in good working condition, use that.
You know that there might be a reason? Maybe the reason is that the Europeans enslaved the Africans and disrespected them under a long time which made their countries poor, which makes the education bad (if there's any at all).
Bad education = People with not as high IQ
They are not born with lower IQ, they get it because of the west-world's discrimination of their countries.
hinduism is not a dangerous religion....
in hinduism we worship bot god and goddesses so there cannot be ny gender based biasing...
it depends on peoples mentality though....
IQ is your ability to spot patterns, reason spatially, abstract and solve problems. Education probably has some effect on your IQ, but other factors are far more important. The most important is genetic inheritance. Parents with high IQ will tend to have children with high IQ and vica-versa.
To add to the IQ discussion:
IQ is not the only thing that the society needs to grow. There are different forms of intelligence that is needed for a complex society. IQ is just one of them. Creativity is not always connected to the IQ. And to say that it is the analytic ability of a child or a man that marks his or her intelligence is not accurate. There are numerous tests which have proved that men who are analytically great but they have been flops in their lives. While at the same time, there are routine absolutely non analytic but intuitive and creative at the same time have been successful in their lives.
While one streak of genome might be successful in certain conditions, there could be others that could be successful under a different condition. IQ tests are ok to a certain degree but not the final authority in any case.
No religion is bad....It's the people who follows it or who leads it may be bad...
Religion does not exist by itself. It is made by the people who follow it. Therefore, when you say religion we really mean those people who follow it. There is no religion if there are no followers.
If the people who are following it are bad, then that religion is bad as well. You cannot think of making a nice cake with spoiled flour. Religion makes its followers good or bad depending upon what they teach them. Hinduism teaches that people are born unequal. That is why we should consider the religion dangerous.
Islam or Christianity does not bring about difference in people by birth. That is why they are successful all over the world. Whereas that is not the case with Hinduism. That is the reason why it never really spread beyond India. To counter Hinduism and its bad qualities a number of new religions also took its birth in India. The need for a new religion was felt because of these factors.
Bullshit. One dirty playing rough basketball player does not make the sport of basketball bad.
Hmm..but what happens when the governing body of basketball introduce rules which are 'bad'? It would then be the game itself (as practiced under the codes of that governing body) that was bad wouldn't it?
Would it? ^_^
There is no end to this. If someone wants to claim basketball as pure, they can simply keep changing the boundaries of what basketball is to suit that belief. At the extreme end, they can claim that basketball is this purely abstract ideal that is totally unrelated to the rules, players, governing bodies and any given interpretation. Such an abstract ideal simply wouldn't have anything to "hang your hat on"; no concrete facts or characteristics to pin a moral judgement on. And if you choose to define that abstract ideal as pure good... well, saying it's good simply becomes a tautology.
What you end up with could be a situation where the players are all greedy, violent, hateful scumbags, the rules are corrupt and barbaric, the governing bodies are fascistic and exploitive, and every single interpretation of the game is misogynistic and daft... ... ... but basketball "itself" is still "purely good".
i'm sure you can see the analogy. Pretty much every religion today is canny enough to define its core ideal as a purely virtuous abstract. So they "win" the moral argument by default. All they have to do is vigorously rebuff any alternative definitions of its core ideal (it's just as easy to define the core ideal of basketball as evil as good), and the religion is safe from any criticism.
I guess that would be called hymn 22
Pretty good analysis really!
But tell me what or where is basketball in this? Is it the game that people play or is it the rules that are made? What and where is this 'basketball itself" that is good? The good basketball that you are taking of has vanished over a period of time when the bad took over the good!
One good custom would always come to an end, doesn't it? That is the case with every one of the religions. The "core" or the 'basketball itself" does not exist or nobody knows where it exists. And you can only define what you do not know. And that definition for the unknown, unseen is 'pure'.
First U Understand difference between Hinduism & Other religion.
Hinduism not a religion.
It tries to give reasons and means. It never compels any one on any thing. Even no need to accept god and scriptures.
It is up to you follow or not to follow. It accepts rules and law changes time to time and place to place.
It ask you to explore and experience. It provide guidance only.
There is no single founder or single prophet.
So there is huge difference of thoughts, opinions, philosophy etc.. etc.. Means highly democratic. So lot of sects and each sects tries to project themselves above other. Over a period of time economy also plays a vital role in the segmentation and all becomes customs over a period of time.
So many books, scriptures, holy places and method of following.
Even Atheism also part of Hinduism.
Have single founder or Prophets.
Whether Evil or bad or worst, you have to follow or obey. No escape route. Authoritarian or Military rule. So there is no difference of thoughts, opinions, philosophy.
It is up to you whether follow any religion or Hinduism.
If you have any problem, it is better don's follow any religion. Be on your own. Live as you wish.
the man above doesnt know anything about hinduism. i suggest you better go and read the scriptures again and then give any comment on anything. hinduism says that is anything or anyone by birth , but his karma makes him. anyone who practices puja is a brahman, who practices skills of fighting or vows to defend is a kshatriya, who intends to do business is vaishyas and who intends to serve is a shudra. anyone born to a shudra can also be a brahman. and most important thing is the flaws are not in the religion but in the person himself. the bastard brahmans , to make themselves superior have created all such bogus.
LOL....you have no idea how often we hear this apologetic.
"The religion is perfect, it's just the people that follow the religion who screw it up".
Well no, sorry, that doesn't fly here. Even if I allow that it isn't the obvious 'No true scotsman' fallacy - which I don't - you would still need to persuade me (or the reader) that YOUR understanding of Hindu scripture was correct and that other understandings are wrong.
This is notoriously difficult to do with ANY religious text, and I would probably argue it is impossible. All human (natural) language contains ambiguities so even the most plainly written text is nearly always open to several different interpretations. But religious texts are famously NOT plainly written - they usually contain lots of figurative language, heavy use of metaphor and simile, parabolic passages and so on. It is therefore a truism, but one which obviously needs repeating, that such texts, if given to 10 different people, will yield 10 different religions.
In fact, one of the greatest delusions of the religious in general is the conviction, against all the available evidence, that a particular and specific message is not only available via the scripture, but that the <insert sect of the believer here> has the true interpretation, as opposed to all other sects. And that is just within one religious tradition - don't even get me started on multiple different such traditions...
My opinion, in a nutshell, is that no religion has it right. And when faith is a major factor, facts aren't as important anymore. If we could simply have the facts, I believe we'd find the answers we've searched for right in front of our faces. One thing to remember is how everything is related and we don't always see the correlations. But I digress...
I believe Hinduism is no more dangerous than Catholicism.
Everything is related? Huh? This is either a trite statement with no practical meaning, or it is claiming something that I would require some extremely convincing evidence for.
Yes, everything in the observable universe is connected in the sense that each spacetime event is within the reach of every other event IN THEORY (by which we simply mean that a light photon could get from one to the other - as opposed to objects/events beyond that point which are said to be causally unconnected and are essentially out of reach) - but that doesn't mean that if I press the next key very hard, that will have some effect on the weather in Peru next Thursday - at least not in any way I can see.
Perhaps you mean that everything CAN be related, in that you can examine various events and draw up a correlation between them. So there are many famous examples....I'll take a couple:
Dress length and Economic prosperity. It is generally true that if the economy is doing well skirts are short and vica-versa. So various voodoo economists have theories to explain this - when women feel good about themselves they are confident enough to wear shorter dresses/skirts, whereas when times are bad they retreat 'into themselves' and skirts/dresses get more conservative. Personally I tend to think it is utter bollox and is indicating absolutely NO causal link, just coincidence.
Another example is the ice-cream murder correlation. High sales of ice-cream correlate to high levels of Murder - at least this is true for New York. Maybe the ice-cream is really crap in that city?
Wow That's a beautiful explanation of your thoughts. It's okay if you use your original name instead of a masked name. No one's gonna find you and ask you for the post you wrote. All we can do now is to pity you for your ignorance and lack of a sense to assess the things in the basic Level.
As a matter of fact I've created this account just to reply to your post. It's a very old post and I hope you are not dead yet as you read this reply.
Let's assess your post. Its very beautifully written, Great combination of words, kewl vocabulary usage, etc etc. I wish I can use words like you. let's get into the content now.
1. Hinduism espouses slavery? What the eff man..u are soo good. never heard that word before. the reply now: How can a mistake made by someone who followed a religion can distinguish a religion from good or bad? Hinduism states that there are 4 types of people borm from 4 parts of the first man created. have you ever heard about the rig veda stating the untouchability? It was never been there in the vedas, geeta, mahaBharat what ever holy book you take. there was no flaw in the Hinduism it's your ideology and the perspective of thinking which lacks maturity.
Oh I missed your last line.
Hinduism makes the women Slaves? Are you kidding me?? "Mathru devo bhava" ever heard this line? Mom(a Female/women) holds the greatest priority, value (out of words) to a human according to the Hinduism and I am convinced with it. not only me. but millions of people are convinced with that. It's the dowry system which made people afraid of the girl child not the Hinduism you moron.
Hinduism supported "kanya sukam" not dowry. Kanya sulkam is where boys gotta offer something to invite a wonderful being called women into his life. grow up Kiddo.
2. Caste system was made by the society and not the Religion. Have you ever shook your hands or hugged a beggar who bathed a month ago? That thought invented the caste system. but our forefather's took it a way far beyond that which was horrible. they actually banned them from the village, temples and pubic areas. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO DID THAT YOU IDIOT NOT THE RELIGION.
3. You know who is the founder of Buddhism? Siddhartha was a prince of northern India. He is Indian a Hindu. Who Incorporated the greatest of Hinduism into his own thoughts and rules and founded the so called Buddhism. Ever head of meditating? It's a Hindu practice. and all the westerns do that now. Every one accepts the Hinduism by various ways. every rule/suggestion made in Hinduism are being scientifically proved as true. Like the Rangoli/Muggu in front of the entrance of the door cause more oxygen in the home. You gotta Zip your mouth If you don't know things.
4. The Line " Hinduism kills" just proved that you are an A-hole with great communication skills and a zero/negative usage of your brain. You should be ashamed of what you said. I don't know how you'll raise your kids. Hope they can use some of their brain unlike you.
I don't know about the incidents. I don't know they have actually happened. even though they are really committed they are made by the humans and not the religion. Even heard that the westerns killed all the doctors tried to analyse the biology of a human(corpse) thinking that they are witches? Did that effect their religion? No. It' just a matter of darkness. they had no knowledge of that being done earlier and had to do that. So Religion has nothing to do with the sins committed by he followers. The responsibility of a religion is that It has to show a correct path/ guide it's followers into a good, kind, healthy way of life. It's up to the followers if they follow the rules or not. THe eligion can't directy punish the followers for their mistakes because the religion don't have a body.
It took a lot of time for me to type this. I wish I was good at English like you.
please Ignore the spell and grammar mistakes and understand the view and feelings of the reply. Thank You.
Praveen Kumar Thadakamalla.
Someone posted this in my philosophy group on facebook. The amount of hatred and ignorance expressed in this post is disturbing, but not at all surprising. I will post my response to it here in the hopes that come to understand just how misguides and ridiculous it is.
It is obviously written by someone who 1] hates Hinduism, 2] doesn't know anything about Hinduism, and 3] has a political agenda.
1. Hinduism espouses Slavery
Incorrect. The Bhagavad Gita is not the Bible of Hinduism. The Vedas are. The Gita is the standard around which devotional Hinduism if formed, but in actuality, it is a singular document that is contained in a much larger document that is a "hero epic" (The Mahabharata), not a religious doctrine. The epic is essentially about a war in ancient India, similar to the Iliad. The information is historical (or pseudo-historical), not instructive. It doesn't serve to teach correct or incorrect morality or ethics either. Slavery is no more a doctrine of Hinduism than capitalism is a doctrine of Christianity. In fact, Hindu scriptures are often outspoken against such ignorance, just like the Old Testament is outspoken against the money-lenders. But obviously both religions are ignored in this regard.
2. Hinduism has always implemented caste system and made comebacks.
Incorrect. The Indian caste system is not a product of Hinduism. It is a cultural invention. Some Hindu texts mention the caste system for the simple fact that it is a part of the culture. There are also Muslim and non-Indian cultures that also have a similar caste system. In addition to this, the caste system that is in existence now was never addressed by the Hindu scriptures because it didn't exist at the time of their composition. The original caste system was a system of professional and artisan guilds. One was not obligated to have to remain in any particular caste except for the priest caste which was a separate entity entirely. Like in all ancient cultures, for the most part, only the wealthy could afford to be literate enough to learn the scriptures. However, others were not explicitly barred from doing so. There are many gurus of the past who were not members of the Brahmin caste. Brahmins hold a great deal of political power, but this is because they obtained it the easy way. They bought it with their wealth. The religious texts did not grant them such power. The mistreatment that the lower castes and the untouchable receive from the upper castes is not ordained by religion, but is merely the same old bigotry and intolerance that is in play in nearly every human society on earth.
3. Hinduism was never accepted by any other group of people
Proselyting and conversions are not a part of Hinduism which is not an organized religion. Since Hinduism never sought to convert anyone, there is no reason why anyone other than those born to Hinduism or those who chose to be Hindu to have accept Hinduism. There is also no rule that says those born to Hinduism have to stay Hindu. I'm sure there are people whose families will often pressure their children to remain Hindu, but that is not a religious issue, it's a social one.
4. Hinduism kills
Just a lie. Although there have been many conflicts between Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and Jains in the past and present, none of these conflicts were over religious doctrine. They were purely political in nature. Hinduism doesn't have any doctrine requiring that people defend their beliefs from others, promote any particular god or doctrine, or even adhere to the scriptures themselves. Hinduism has never been a national religion of India. Only Buddhism has ever had that honor. Hinduism doesn't even have a political philosophy or ideological philosophy that would bring together any particular people for a common cause. Even its religious philosophy is varied and multifaceted. Exactly which Hinduism is the predominant Hinduism? Not even the gurus can answer.
It is certainly true that Hinduism cements social inequality. But the teaching is how to be happy about it. I think it is an interesting way of thought, much different from any Western way of thinking. However I disagree with it. I prefer that people have a chance to change social classes.
True. But that does not make it a good or bad idea in itself. Many religions have never made it around the world.
I have to admit I am not sure about this. I have always thought that Hinduism preaches non-violence unless somebody is threatened. But I may be wrong about this.
It is interesting that you mention Jainism. I have never understood much about it although I visited various Jain temples in my life. I have to say I much like the ideas about non-violence, non-absolutism and non-possessiveness which Wikipedia explains are the main principles.
It would be interesting to have a separate thread about it here...
People keep missing this point, so I'll repeat. (Not sure if they are just not reading what is above, or are ignoring it on purpose).
The modern Indian caste system has nothing to do with Hinduism, the philosophy or religion. The modern system of varnas was not in place during the compilation of the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the original compilation of the puranas, Brahma Sutras, or Upanishads.
There was no mandatory system until the end of the Vedic period. And for even some time after, the varnas were a system of professional guilds that one could change anytime they pleased - except for the Brahmin caste. The current system originates with the Dharmasastra, which is NOT a religious text, but an early legal / social text.
There is nothing in the religious scriptures that support the modern varna system.
First of all Hinduism is one of the oldest religion of the world and many things have changed due to time. Hindu is not a religion taking by oath, it came by born. Their is no Bible for Hinduism. Caste system never made by Hinduism. You have read about Brahmin, Kshatriya, Baishya and Sudra but not read that a Sudra may become Brahmin if he got knowledge.
I think Hinduism is a very strange relogion.
Hmm Jezus said we'd better burn those people who do not believe, the koran proposes stoning them.
Killing of the non-believer is very widespread in holy books, alas..
I think it's more a case of most people just not caring. You're not saying anything we haven't heard before a thousand times, for other religions as well as Hinduism.
It's like you noted with Christianity and capitalism - and you could say the same for Christianity and homosexuality or Islam and depictions of Muhammand, or many other things. It doesn't really matter that the "original" religion didn't include that crap... the religion as it exists today does. And we're not living with the Hinduism of 500 BCE or the Christianity of 100 CE or the Islam of 700 CE, we're living with the Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam of 2014. Telling us what these religions were like in the past, or what they originally said, or what the "pure" form of them is like... that's noise to us. It just doesn't matter.
You can yap on about how Hinduism doesn't approve of slavery... but history just makes a liar out of you: the Vedas themselves mention slaves. It's the same stupid game Christians play, where they try to claim Christianity doesn't approve of slavery despite the fact that there were slaves in the Christian scriptures and not one word was ever written to say it was wrong, and Christians themselves kept slaves for hundreds of years.
Dude, if your holy texts don't say X is wrong... and at the same time they show X being done and no one is doing a thing to stop it... and at the same time leaders of your religion did X for hundreds and hundreds of years... you don't get to say your religion is against X.
That holds true for slavery and the caste system, among other atrocities. And it holds true for every religion - Hindu is not special.
Oh, and the bullshit about all the killing in the name of Hinduism being "political" is the same crap people try to pull about every other religion. Even right now news is breaking of Hindu jerks threatening to force people to marry at knife-point if they kiss in public or exchange romantic gifts, because showing love but not marrying is apparently "not Hindu". What the ****** is the "political" motivation in that?
And finally, playing the shell game of saying this or that version of Hindu is or isn't "true" Hindu is not going to fly here. We know "Hinduism" isn't a single religion, duh. We also know that "Christianity" and "Islam" and "Judaism" etc. are not single religions. We are quite well aware that every religion comes with its sectarian squabbles, and that every religion has dozens of sects claiming to be the "true" interpretation of that religion. We know all this... as we're also smart enough to spot the hypocrisy in your tactic of telling us we can't criticize Hinduism because there is no one "true" Hinduism, then turning around and telling us what Hinduism is really all about as if it's one single thing.
Even if all of them did. It does not make the sport bad - only the players.
The original poster is either looking for controversy or has something against Hinduism. His views do not appear to be from a neutral person who is purely highlighting facts. The way his arguments are structured, indicate that his intention is highlight extremes. There are various places in the Ramayana, Mahabaratha etc that the importance of non-violence, duty, respect to elders, tolerance etc etc are brought out but there's no mention of any of that in the OP's post. He ignores all the good but highlights the bad. Such an imbalanced article suggests a deep bias or agenda. Sorry if my analysis of the situation appears to place a lot of blame on the OP - that is truly the case.
Hinduism is worst religion. Most religions discriminate people outside its fold. Hinduism is the only religion which makes its 97% followers of lower birth.
This post was started by a hater - does he have any evidence that Jains were killed off? Where is this evidence? And let's look at the history of Christianity and Islam shall we? How many people - recorded cases - were killed off?
This post is scary - because this promotes religious hate taking a word here or making up whatever he wants. As for Brahmins having the right to kill people - where did he get that? Just because there is something somewhere one can use it to condemn an entire faith? how many such words can we find in other religions? How many threats and killings have there been in other religions?
How come they are not dangerous?
And he says that since Hinduism is confined to one country that is a bad thing. So what? So are Jainism and Judaism. Are they evil as well?
Disgusted and sick to see such hate-filled posts. Fact is that if the Buddha had been born in Christian or muslim lands he would have been branded a heretic and tortured to death! His writings burnt, his followers killed! There would be no Buddhism today! That didn't happen in Hindu India! Hindu India is home to half the world's top religions! That's not an accident! We didn't kill our Buddhas!
Where are the other religions from the rest of the world? Those Buddhas were killed off!
Jews were the lower-castes of christian worlds - Ahmadias seem to be the lower-castes of the muslim world - again this guy is not going to mention them
Casteism is wrong and I am a Hindu saying that but religious-casteism is equally wrong - to say if you don't join our religion you get hell is religious-casteism, religious-apartheid and this hate is freely in fact encouraged! In the 21st century!
We seem to lack morality - the moral people keep their silence it seems
You don't have to apologize - this guy is a hater and is looking to promote hate. Where did all these Jains get killed. And of course we lose all arguments? Where? What arguments? The religions are totally different with different goals. The way some people are so full of hate is disgusting