After-life

Originally posted by lucifershammer
This is just classical Hindu doctrine. I'm not saying it is explicitly endorsed by the Upanishads -- but, as you can see, it's not incompatible.

Precisely. Religious texts are often used to justify social practices, rather than social practices springing from religious texts.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Many European scholars from the colonial era regarded the Manusmriti as the "law book" of the Hindus and thus concluded that the caste system is a part of Hinduism, an assertion that is rejected by many religious scholars of Hinduism, who contend that it is an anachronistic social practice, not a religious one[6][7]. Although many Hindu scriptures con ...[text shortened]... e that the four varnas are created by God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system

Just a clarification here -- many people (even Indians) confuse the Shudras with the untouchables. The untouchables are, properly speaking, a-varna; i.e. outside the varna system whereas the Shudras are the fourth tier within the varna system. They were certainly never discriminated against to anywhere like the same extent the Dalits (as the untouchables call themselves today) were.

Also, it is important to remember that the Vedas, in particular, were primarily texts for religious rites. As such, they were oriented primarily (if not exclusively) at the Brahmins -- the priestly class who performed those rites.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I wonder how the word "punishment" crept in...The karmic vehicle, so to speak, is indifferent--you merely reap what you have sown--although it wasn't "you".

Perhaps karma has everyone fooled--who says that being born as Paris Hilton is a special reward for good behaviour? Also, if karma is a fact (I don't know), then it operates in lands where ther ...[text shortened]... question is why this karmic transfer should take place at all. Hard to test, isn't it?

I'm not following you. I'm pretty ignorant regarding this subjects so feel free to correct me if I have a wrong perspective of things.

I don't see a fundamental difference between 'Reaping what one has sown' and punishment/reward. Note that I'm assuming that these are 'just', in the sense that the balance of karma is maintained. Note also that there doesn't even need to be a 'judge', just a cosmic order of some sort that applies to each individual.

The idea that you don't get a clean slate when you're born means that for each generation opportunities are unequal, even if we assume that for each 'karmic vehicle' the intertemporal opportunities are equal.

Your last question is a matter of faith, not coherence. I may dispute matters of coherence, but not matters of faith. These I try to only discuss, not argue.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Passages from scriptures such as Manusmriti suggest that the caste system was originally non-hereditary:

As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya
ManuSmriti X:65"

Here's the full context of that verse:

64. If (a female of the caste), sprung from a Brahmana and a Sudra female, bear (children) to one of the highest caste, the inferior (tribe) attains the highest caste within the seventh generation.

65. (Thus) a Sudra attains the rank of a Brahmana, and (in a similar manner) a Brahmana sinks to the level of a Sudra; but know that it is the same with the offspring of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Also, it is important to remember that the Vedas, in particular, were primarily texts for religious rites. As such, they were oriented primarily (if not exclusively) at the Brahmins -- the priestly class who performed those rites.

Of course--but times change, and people interpret their texts according to their changing needs. Or they create new ones.

What I find remarkable is that the Upanishads are very old, but still--unlike the caste system--flexible enough to meet spiritual needs today. Not to the exclusion of other writings, of course...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course--but times change, and people interpret their texts according to their changing needs. Or they create new ones.

What I find remarkable is that the Upanishads are very old, but still--unlike the caste system--flexible enough to meet spiritual needs today. Not to the exclusion of other writings, of course...

That may be so, but it isn't why I mentioned the point. It was in response to the argument you cited about paucity of Vedic references for caste. I'm just saying that's not unexpected in a book of its genre and its target audience.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't see a fundamental difference between 'Reaping what one has sown' and punishment/reward. Note that I'm assuming that these are 'just', in the sense that the balance of karma is maintained. Note also that there doesn't even need to be a 'judge', just a cosmic order of some sort that applies to each individual.

I'm no expert, I just fancy I have a good feel for how this works.

The original point of this discussion (according to me) was whether the Upanishads, with their teachings on samsara (reincarnation), implicitly support the caste system. So far, we have found that they not incompatible, but that isn't saying very much.

Inequality is a fact, isn't it. Look around, there it is. Assuming karma is responsible for this, well, ok, whatever someone did while they were alive has affected my origins, my constitution. Suppose I accept that--so what? Why should I feel obliged to stay in a social box? Culture is required for that, specifically being born into a caste system and conditioned accordingly...Is karma responsible for the actual circumstances of one's birth, or is it more a case of a certain karmic vehicle being attracted to a womb (I don't know the exact mechanics of it, but that's the idea) with which it finds a particular affinity? Certainly that's the Tibetan view--in a manner of speaking! Follow the blue (?) light...Avert your gaze from the red... Sorry if I'm not terribly clear, I'm just rambling a bit, trying to share...

So, we have karmic inequality--everyone born with different constitution--but that needn't necessarily equate with material inequality. The idea is that this karmic vehicle has to be attracted to a womb...if it isn't, it has escaped the wheel of samsara!

The question of the available number of pre-existing KVs with regard to the population explosion is easily answered with reference to voyaging alien souls, or maybe the pigs are just getting more spiritual.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That may be so, but it isn't why I mentioned the point. It was in response to the argument you cited about paucity of Vedic references for caste. I'm just saying that's not unexpected in a book of its genre and its target audience.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm no expert, I just fancy I have a good feel for how this works.

The original point of this discussion (according to me) was whether the Upanishads, with their teachings on samsara (reincarnation), implicitly support the caste system. So far, we have found that they not incompatible, but that isn't saying very much.

Inequality is a fact, isn't ...[text shortened]... reference to voyaging alien souls, or maybe the pigs are just getting more spiritual.

The original point of this discussion (according to me) was whether the Upanishads, with their teachings on samsara (reincarnation), implicitly support the caste system.

This I cannot say, but I was commenting on your statement about the incompatibility between a caste system and reincarnation. Although I now agree with you that a social stratification isn't a necessity, I still think it is a natural interpretation and a especially thought-provoking one has it tends to justify inequality (which means that one shouldn't care too much about it).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm no expert, I just fancy I have a good feel for how this works.

The original point of this discussion (according to me) was whether the Upanishads, with their teachings on samsara (reincarnation), implicitly support the caste system. So far, we have found that they not incompatible, but that isn't saying very much.

Inequality is a fact, isn't ...[text shortened]... reference to voyaging alien souls, or maybe the pigs are just getting more spiritual.

That the Upanishads are not incompatible with the hereditary caste system actually says quite a bit. As (I think) Pal agrees, a hereditary caste system is the most natural social interpretation of a theory of samsara based on karma-phal (btw, the idea of Karmic Vehicles is AFAIK not one you'll find in historical Indian commentaries on the Upanishads; atman was very much personalised -- including memories of previous lives -- until the final ascension/merging/[can't remember Sanskrit term here] with Brahman).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Consider this -- you wouldn't find too many references to the feudal system, or slavery, or many other contemporary Middle Age social issues in the Missale Romanum now, would you?

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m not sure exactly how you mean that. I should say that people use the word “ego” in different ways—Freud different from the Zennists, etc.

People who are unable to develop strong ego-boundaries may be exploited and abused. Sometimes, if people say someone has a “strong ego,” they simply mean she is secure in herse ...[text shortened]... construct?

So, I tend not to speak in terms of “elimination,” but of realization.

Perhaps you miss the point. If all individuals were motivated by values such as truth, justice, unity, excellence, etc. rather than having self-centered motivations such as pride, greed, seeking sensory experiences, etc., then this would be a much different world. Unfortunately few individuals attain this level of maturity.

I cannot think of any transgressions of man against man that are not rooted in the self. If an individual is secure in virtuous values, there is no need for strong ego-boundaries for "protection".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Advantage of being a just system"? How is any system that actually justifies practical slavery "just"?

"... might get condemned to eternal torment if you make some bad choices"? This is a false account of Christian (certainly Catholic) doctrine and you know it.

Your "arguments" seem to get more and more spurious every day aided by your continued use of selective quotation to give a deliberately misleading impression of what was stated. The "system" being referred to is not the caste system, but the "system" of karma. And that "system" is just by definition.

No, the statement made is accurate regarding Christian, including Catholic, theology. And you know it. If you disagree, please respond to this portion of the original quote (though do try to read it all so you might, for once, understand some context):

To inflict upon the soul eternal punishment for the errors of a few years, or even of a whole lifetime, is to throw to the winds all sense of proportion.

EDIT: And for a Christian who supposedly believes in the OT to say that another religion supports "virtual slavery" gets a LMFAO. Or is your critique that unlike the Bible, the Hindu caste system didn't support full-fledged slavery?

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm not following you. I'm pretty ignorant regarding this subjects so feel free to correct me if I have a wrong perspective of things.

I don't see a fundamental difference between 'Reaping what one has sown' and punishment/reward. Note that I'm assuming that these are 'just', in the sense that the balance of karma is maintained. Note also that there doe ...[text shortened]... s of coherence, but not matters of faith. These I try to only discuss, not argue.

As usual, LH has headed off into off-topic nitpicking. The point was that there is no eternal punishment in Hindu theology, while that is the main stick wielded by Christian theology. And that the idea of eternal punishment for the acts of a human during his lifetime is grossly disproportionate.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That the Upanishads are not incompatible with the hereditary caste system actually says quite a bit. As (I think) Pal agrees, a hereditary caste system is the most natural social interpretation of a theory of samsara based on karma-phal (btw, the idea of Karmic Vehicles is AFAIK not one you'll find in historical Indian commentaries on th ...[text shortened]... -- until the final ascension/merging/[can't remember Sanskrit term here] with Brahman).

I think the caste system precedes the Upanishads. Before the samsara system was the system of many gods, described in the Rig Veda (I think), with whom worshippers would try to identify. Therefore the caste system is not an interpretation of the samsara cycle expressed in the Upanishads.

The four-fold caste pattern (priest, warrior, farmer / merchant, labourer) was also to be found in many other societies in ancient times--even the Aztecs, who presumably had not read the Upanishads. But you never know.

It also seems (on cursory inspection) that the much-vilified caste system was by no means rigidly stratified--it was quite flexible, although unsuited to modern times perhaps, and subject to the usual abuses inherent in all human institutions.

"Jai Chand Vidyalankar in Itihaas Pravesh writes that in the beginning the castes had all the possible flexibility but it began to be rigid in the 10th century, to defend the Hindu life from the barbaric invaders who not only raped, murdered, plundered but also terrorized people towards conversion to Islam." http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/108.htm

As for the Upanishads not being incompatible with the caste system, that does not mean very much today. A person within the caste system can draw on the Upanishads for inspiration and guidance; a person without can do the same.