Replies

Is there any teaching in Hinduism that rejects or abhors the caste system? There is such teaching the the Christian scriptures that erases national, cultural, and economic divisions between people ("In Christ, there is no Jew or Greek...") and I assume such teaching appeals to those whose people have been oppressed for generations.

That some "Christians" throughout history have ignored this particular teaching has nothing to do with the fact that it does indeed exist.

"n the 16th century, during Sri Vaadiraja 's rule, Kanakadasa, an ardent believer of God, came to Udupi to worship Lord Krishna. He was not allowed inside the temple since he was from a lower caste. Sri Krishna, pleased by the worship of Kanakadasa created a small hole in the back wall of the temple and (his idol) turned to face the hole so that Kanakadasa could see him. This hole came to be known as KanakanaKindi. "

http://www.mangalore.com/documents/udupi.html

Krishna's life is strickingly similar to that of Moses, even the part where his biological parents are persecuted by the then rulers of the land, and the king's decree of killing every first born of the slaves.So, infant Krishna was placed in a casket so that he may be rescued.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Little Krishna and Mother Yashoda

Note that the skin colour of the woman holding the infant Krishna is much lighter than that of the infant itself.

The thing about hinduism, as AIFI said, is that it's not really a religion, more like a meta-religion (in the same way that XML is a meta-language) -- it does not really have any prescribed holy books or Gods or ceremonies.

Reading it's mythology and history is fascinating. Pre-Buddhist times, hinduism started off a Vedic Hinudism (from the Vedas) witha high emphasis on ceremonies, sacrifices (animal too, there was a horse sacrifice or ashwamedah(?)).

Very very Aryanic. The Gods worshipped were also Vedic gods -- like Indra, analogous to Thor, the god of thunder and of war. The VEdis 'Gods' started out in primitive Aryanic as two families of Gods -- the Daevas and the Asuras. Over time, the Indic people favoured the Devas and the asuras got relegated to being the bad gusy (and after Chrstian and Muslim influences, they got potrayed as demons, which is strange as hinduism has no concept of hell).

In the nearby Irani peninsula (another Aryan people), the Iranis favored the ahuras (the difference betwen sanskrit and avestan (ancient farsi/persian) is that the sanskrit 's' becomes the avestan 'h' like sindhu (people of sindh/the indus river (now in pakistan) were called Hindu (*))
So, when Zoroaster came along and created his dualistic religion (the predecessor to Mazdaism and influencor of Manichaenism) in ~700BC, he choose the god of good and light as Ahura Mazda.
The daevas got relegated to status of minor gods/household gods.

Further west, in the nordic areas, the nodrics were a lot more primitive, they retained the two families of Gods as more or less equal -- the Aesir and the Vanir.

In Greece, one family was favoured and the other forgotten (plus Greek religion had a lot of influence from Egyptian and Canaanite religions through the Minoan civilisation).

I'm not sure about the Celtic Gods, but they seem to be vaguely like traditional Aryanic Gods with the element of "magic"

(*)Even the term Hindu or Hinduism is non-sensical -- as I stated before, no-one knows what the Harappans called themselves, but the Vedic tribes called themselves Bharatas (after a particular clan), so the indian alter-ego, Bharat. However, the religion practised in the sub continent was hardly unified, with a myriad of Gods, regional Gods, etc. The Persians were the first to give the people of the subcontinent ONE name -- they called them the people of the Indus river or Hindus who lived in Hindustan, so at its root, Hinduism is geographic in its definition analogous to Indian.

After Buddhism, which was a reaction to the over -ritualised Vedic religions and which is intrinsically ATHIESTIC (the next time a far eastern Buddhist calls Buddha a God, you can tell him he's wrong, he's a follower of Mahayana, and that the Buddha's central theme was that you don't need the Gods, you can obtain salvation/nirvana on your own -- this is the teaching as practised by the first Buddhists who knew from Buddha's teachings that he said he was NOT a god. These Buddhists are however a small community mostly based on Sri Lanka called Hinayana Bhuddhism)

Anyway, after Buddha, india had its first Emperor Ashoka who ruled over most of the Subcontinet and over land that is now India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, parts of Iran, Central Asia, Burma and Tibet. Thsi guy converted to Buddhism and what hapens when your all powerful ruler converts, yes, everyone converts (and most were fed up of VEdic hinduism), except the priests who now no longer have jobs. AND VEDIC HINDUISM DIES OUT

After Ashoka's dynasty dies out, these priests hit upon a brilliant scheme to take back the land -- they deify Buddha and make him an incarnation of one of the non-Vedic gods -- Viushnu.

Vishnu has a dozen differnt "incarnations", from half men half lions to dwarves etc., in short, one size fits all, if you got a person you think is a God, and you dont' want to expand your pantheon, you make him an incarnation of Vishnu (Ram and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu too!)

And, most importantly, VISHNU IS NOT AN ARYAN GOD, no one knows where he came from and when he started getting worshipped. He's not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas and he's NOT represented in Harappan civilisation. The only "deity" hinted at in Harappan civilisation is Shiva, an ascetic figure with snakes draped around his neck (as an aside, the strange thing about the Harappan civilisation is that it has no temples or palaces, and very straight roads, almost like a civilisation made up solely of atheistic merchant republics with no priests and no kings)

The Hindu "trinity" consists of Brahma the creator (again no mention of him in th Vedas), Vishnu the sustainer or protector and Shiva the destoyer.

This "trinity" only seem to appear a bit after Christianity first reached india (carried along by St. Thomas), so tis seems more than likely that the priests incorporated elements of Christianity into their religion, so that the broader term hinduism ws not threatened by this new, strange religion. Vishnu is an malgamation of gods, kind of like the Egytian Amun-Re. If you have a local god and you want to make him pan-Indian, you claim he's an incarnation of Vishnu. Ta da!

anyway, so, after that long ramble, I get to the point, hinduism is NOT a religion, its more like a way to live, analogous to Roman paganism. The only reason it survives is because of its wealth of philosophical teachings (far more than Greek teachings). The hindu fundamentalists in India define themselves primarily as being NOT MUSLIM. The Islamic conquest of India was particularly painful with nearly 100 million slaughtered over the centuries. So, its no wonder they've turned belligerent. Opening up the economy and modernising would secularise the nation and enable it to prosper. Thats the only way india can free ITSELF from its cycle of death, by modernising and opening up its economy