I find tremendously much to admire in Hinduism, more so than other religions. That said, I’m no expert by a long shot. But it seems clear to me from Krishna’s and Arjuna’s conversation in the Gita, that different elements (castes) in Hindu society have different functions. The warrior class is supposed to exist, and it is supposed to fight. Hinduism isn’t pacifism for all it’s adherents. It is true that Arjuna is not supposed to really concern himself personally with winning or losing. He is supposed to fight because God wants him to, and Arjuna, like all Hindus, is supposed to serve God.

JiangxiDad on December 8, 2008 at 10:10 AM

The Bhagwad Gita (“The song of God”): The content of the Gita is the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna taking place on the battlefield before the start of the Kurukshetra war. Responding to Arjuna’s confusion and moral dilemma, Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince and elaborates on different Yogic and Vedantic philosophies, with examples and analogies. This has led to the Gita often being described as a concise guide to Hindu philosophy and also as a practical, self-contained guide to life.

The Gita emphasises that the way to serve God is to follow the principles of Dharma, i.e. to do one’s duty. For Arjun, being a warrior and a prince, that meant fighting for truth, even against his blood relatives (which is what his armies were lined up on the battlefield for).

I encourage anyone interested in understanding the Hindu mindset to read the Gita.

On the other hand, the whole idea of trying to distinguish between the material and transitory world, and the transcendent world of the eternal soul and a knowing of God, does, imo, contribute to a certain “other worldliness” (spacing out??) that may make one somewhat less concerned with the exigencies of the present. It’s something I face in my own life as well. Find succor from the material world in higher truth, but risk subjugation to an impending evil.

JiangxiDad on December 8, 2008 at 10:10 AM

It leads to a certain detachment, true. But it’s extremely hard to achieve detachment to any meaningful state.

I realize that I am supporting your point with some of this, but at the same time don’t forget that the knock on India is that Hinduism has pacified the nation.

JiangxiDad on December 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Quite the contrary. Hinduism isn’t pacifist at all. The modern impression of Hinduism as a pacifist religion is bullcrap propogated by pseudo-Marxists and Gandhi followers who were worried the Hindu majority in India would massacre Muslims if not pacified.

I find it incredibly amusing when people believe that a religion that had an entire cast (out of four) devoted to warfare was pacifist. Don’t you see the contradiction there?

Just to give you an example of how we never were pacifists … read about the Rajputs, the Marathas, the Gorkhas, the Jats and the Sikhs.

Don’t hold your breath. They know they have to do something dramatic, so Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi goes down. They’re not going to want to hand him over to India if they can possibly avoid it, of course; the guy is probably a walking encyclopedia of the Pakistani grapevine. Whether he ends up in India alive will be the real measure of just how scared of India and/or a serious conflagration — whether with India or its own forces — a weak Pakistani government might feel. OTOH, I imagine the ISI, and even the Kashmiri contingent, understand the compelling need to offer up a credible sacrificial lamb, so it even strikes me as possible that this crisis could could have a unifying effect.

We may be seeing the opening public moves in a conflict between the ISI and the Gilani government and perhaps also the Pakistani army.

Civil war in Pakistan? Simply awesome.

The Islamists may have gone too far again; not the first time that they have overstepped.

They don’t see it that way. The Islamists want a regional war between Hindus and Muslims. And remember that 130 million of the latter live in India.

And a re-run of WWI with nukes is going to run pretty fast.

Are you Hindu?
Christien on December 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Hinduism is a religion.

Are you Hindu? Do you have Hindu relatives? I’m interested to know where you get all this insight into Hindus and the way they think.

Someone referred to it as window dressing.
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 11:33 PM

Actually, the correct term is propaganda, and that’s the whole point. The Vietnam war was famous for being largely a propaganda War. But the War on Terror is, for all practical purposes, nothing else besides a very bloody propaganda campaign.

Of course we’ll have to see how this pans out, but it appears what’s going on in Pakistan right now may be something completely new. This is Muslims publically punishing Muslims for killing infidels.

Whether the actual criminals get killed or get secret pensions isn’t nearly as important as the effect that the appearance of concession will have on the billions of Muslims across the world. Because among those billion are at least many thousands of Muslims who would have literally died for a chance to take part in a massacre like the one in India last week. And there are many millions who would have gladly supported them.

Out of all those combatants, killing the one “mastermind” brilliant enough to figure out how to get a 20-to-one kill ratio using grenades and automatic weapons against unarmed civilians would serve the cause of justice, which is always nice. But it’s completely irrelevant to strategy – which is all that matters in war.

You “admire” the caste system? Dude, ick

.

Well, obviously, I don’t admire the icky parts. I was just trying to point out that not all Hindus are supposed to eschew violence. The sheepdog/sheep analogy is the type of “caste” I was referring to, the idea that different elements in society perform different roles.

I can’t tell you for sure how modern Hinduism faces issues like weapons of mass destruction, but I do think the religion believes the world has been destroyed and created over and over, so they would certainly be coming from a different place than most westerners. I realize that I am supporting your point with some of this, but at the same time don’t forget that the knock on India is that Hinduism has pacified the nation. Maybe I’m reading you wrong but I get the feeling that you may be thinking that their beliefs in reincarnation and other worlds may make them casual about using nuclear weapons because the consequences are cosmically cool somehow. If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t see it, but let’s hope not.

For the Indians, they really need to acknowledge Pakistan’s attempts at good will here, stop blaming the government for the attack and cooperate on some military expeditions against extremist.

You’ve got to understand the history of the relationship between these countries. They have fought 3 wars outright in 60 years. Pakistan doesn’t fight in Kashmir (but they train and support the cause – not officially, but officially). Pakistan also ‘didn’t have anything to do with’ the attack on their parliament several years ago.

This incident isn’t happening in a vacuum, and it isn’t the first time that there have been problems. Imagine a group of Mexican nationals breaking into the Capital in DC and opening fire killing several dozen lawmakers because of our border fence. That’s what happened about 5 years ago. India did nothing and looked the other way. What would DC have done to Mexico?

It’s time to stop ‘giving credit’ and time to start CLEANING HOUSE. Pakistan is not a sovereign country. We should treat Pakistan the way that Russia treated Georgia.

logis on December 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Agreed about not needing to get close, but there is a need to know thy enemy, that’s all.

When the US begins to generally understand that Islam is a religion that believes that the descendants of Isaac (Israel) possess inheritance of Abraham which was stolen from Ishmael (Arabs), it makes for a more informed decision process. It also paints the best picture of why there is not even the slightest possibility of Middle East peace.

That’s not even close to the theology. Generically, Dar Al Islam (World of Islam) is the only peaceful state and Dar al Harb (World of War) is where everyone else is……..
Marine_Bio on December 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Yeah, thanks for the theology lesson there, but the last thing in the world I want is to get “close” to that religion. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the details; I just know what I see.

When it comes to the big picture, Christianity and Judeism focus on Commandmenst: indivuduals “doing the right thing.” Communism and Islam are collective: Live in Hell now, but once we kill off the last unbelievers — Paradise! The fact that one of those Paradises happens to be a pedophile’s paradise, and the other one is a worker’s paradise could not possibly matter less to me.

The Crusades, Tripoli, WW1, WW2, the Cold War, and now this… It’s not a bunch of little unrelated conflicts; they’re all part of the same war between cultures, with some very long cease-fires.

I find tremendously much to admire in Hinduism, more so than other religions. That said, I’m no expert by a long shot. But it seems clear to me from Krishna’s and Arjuna’s conversation in the Gita, that different elements (castes) in Hindu society have different functions. The warrior class is supposed to exist…
JiangxiDad on December 8, 2008 at 10:10 AM

You “admire” the caste system? Dude, ick.

Anyway, last week really highlights the flaws in that warrior caste theory. A lot of sheep can get killed before the guard dog shows up.

It is true that Arjuna is not supposed to really concern himself personally with winning or losing. He is supposed to fight because God wants him to, and Arjuna, like all Hindus, is supposed to serve God…. a certain “other worldliness” (spacing out??) that may make one somewhat less concerned with the exigencies of the present.

Exactly. THAT is the scary part. Warrior ants are easy to avoid, but nuclear weapons level the playing field. Muslims are crazy like a fox; Hindus are just plain crazy, and when you’re talking about WMDs, that’s the trump card.

Beagle on December 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Agree. When I first saw the word “progressiveness” in that article, I nearly choked.

One wonders what Condi told the Pakistanis that they would actually raid one of Jamat ud Dawah’s camps to go after some of the Lashkar-e-Taiba leaders suspected of orchestrating the Mumbai massacres? Whatever it is, keep it up Condi. I’ll……

Lots to think about:

During the 19th century flurry of intellectual activity in India journalist Walter Bagehot, 6,000 miles away in England, made a rather cryptic remark about the Darwinian struggle for survival among nation states:

“History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.”

I can’t tell you how often similar thoughts have crossed my mind over the last decade or so. It only takes one generation of fools and cowards to undo all the great works of every preceding great generation.

Hindus, on the other hand, believe in re-incarnation. It’s not that they’re cowards; it’s that they simply don’t CARE whether they live or die. And hey, that cycle of rebirth stuff applies to the whole world.

I find tremendously much to admire in Hinduism, more so than other religions. That said, I’m no expert by a long shot. But it seems clear to me from Krishna’s and Arjuna’s conversation in the Gita, that different elements (castes) in Hindu society have different functions. The warrior class is supposed to exist, and it is supposed to fight. Hinduism isn’t pacifism for all it’s adherents. It is true that Arjuna is not supposed to really concern himself personally with winning or losing. He is supposed to fight because God wants him to, and Arjuna, like all Hindus, is supposed to serve God.

On the other hand, the whole idea of trying to distinguish between the material and transitory world, and the transcendent world of the eternal soul and a knowing of God, does, imo, contribute to a certain “other worldliness” (spacing out??) that may make one somewhat less concerned with the exigencies of the present. It’s something I face in my own life as well. Find succor from the material world in higher truth, but risk subjugation to an impending evil.

They don’t want to destroy the world, they just want to unite it all under a single yoke.

logis on December 8, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Generaly a very good post, but this seems a bit off. That’s not even close to the theology. Generically, Dar Al Islam (World of Islam) is the only peaceful state and Dar al Harb (World of War) is where everyone else is. The twelvers like good ol’ Mamoud Ahm-A-Mad-man believe this will be ushered in when they trigger an Armageddon and the 12th imam rises from the hidden well to usher in the messiah. They want to destroy the world; it is the way to purity where the entire world is united under the yoke of Islam.

Ultimately though, you’re dead right on the fact that they know they’re safe under the leadership of Obama.

Noticing the weak resistance they encountered, both British and Muslim occupiers openly called Hindu men “effeminate.”

Man, when even the British are calling you sissies, you KNOW you have a problem.

But all those rules change when nuclear weapons are involved. Sure Muslims act like psychos, but that’s just on the small scale. They don’t want to destroy the world, they just want to unite it all under a single yoke.

Hindus, on the other hand, believe in re-incarnation. It’s not that they’re cowards; it’s that they simply don’t CARE whether they live or die. And hey, that cycle of rebirth stuff applies to the whole world.

That’s why we were so much better off with Bush running things. It was real easy to picture him whistfully stroking the Button as he hoped that maybe, just maybe, he’d get an excuse to kick-start Armageddon (or as we Christians like to call it: “Kingdom Come.”)

But now America has that Nation of Islam guy running things. And, unless he can drum up some kind of reason to bomb Main or Utah, it’s a little bit hard to just “kill the whities” with nukes – they’re sorta the ultimate in Equal Opportunity weapons. And as for the Muslims? They know perfectly well their dusky hides are going to be safe and sound for the next four years no matter what the Hell they do to Americans.

JiangxiDad on December 8, 2008 at 8:32 AM

One of the biggest problems that the British Raj had with the Hindus, and was never solved, was the philosophy of the “untouchables”. After defeating the Thugees, the British tried hard to remove the segregation based upon birth, but had little to no effect.