India: 'Untouchables' Deserting Hinduism

Anyone think this is a stain on India and Hinduism in India?

 

It's completely unacceptable.

Ghandi wanted to do away with 'untouchability' as did Vivekenanda and many reformers in modern India. Anmesty International also monitor the situation, and have had campaigns on this.
There is much in traditional Indian culture, and in many other cultures which needs to change drastically.

 

If such practices are still carried out in India then thats just plain wrong whether it happens in India or whether if it is due to Hinduism or not... this is just wrong.

There is a story where Shankaracharya is confronted by an "untouchable" everyone was telling this untouchable to get out of the way, he too told him to move out of the way so that the swamiji could pass... but then the untouchable said something like " if you see God in everyone , whats wrong in seeing him in me? , are you telling the God to move away from you or me? " , then I guess after that Shankara bowed down in reverance to him and asked for his forgiveness. Somewhere its also said I think that the untouchable was none other than Paramatma himself who is none other than Shiva Shankar! in the form of this untouchable. He came to teach Shankara... a lesson.... or thats what they say.

 

that is a bad idea

 

I guess it's similar to how the african-americans were treated in the USA. Especially in the south, the "Bible belt".

You just wonder why such strong religious areas can accept such behavior.

 

Maybe they have a false and distorted idea of 'religion'.
Most followers of mass organized religions have no actual spiritual experience - a lot of it is based on old and outmoded traditions, and they are mainly just cultural conservatives who are stuck in a rut. I think that applies to all the established religions on this planet. Too often they are just used by those who hold power to maintain the status quo.
Far from being something which liberates people the religions are often just a kind of brainwashing/control device.
It is only a relative few who grasp the inner core of true spirituality.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head BlackBillBlake

 

and hit it good , that he did

 

Sure about that?

Doesn't it seem that the apparent faults in modern religion drive people into a personal relationship with the divine?

(God taps fingers together like Monty Burns and says "Excellent")

 

I don't think the flaws in religions modern or ancient help anyone at all to develop any kind of relation to the Divine.It doesn't even help them have a fair or just society. In the case of the lower castes and untouchables in India, it just leads to unacceptable repression and marginalization.

 

Just to add to that - If we think the goal of 'religion' is a kind of escape from this world, then I suppose harsh social conditions could accelerate the dawning of a realization of that goal. In that type of scenario, people turn to God for solace, to get away from their troubles and so on. Since this world is so miserable, they want to get out of it for good.
On the other hand, if we believe that the goal is realization of the Divine life here and now on earth, then it's very hard to see how living under repressive conditions could have much functionality, because such a society is far from embodying the Divine. It reflects more human ignorance and egoism. In the Kingdom of the Divine will be no slaves, no pariahs, no un-touchables. Nor will the world be seen as a place of misery and suffering, but as an expression of the All-blissful Consciousness from which it has sprung.

Also, in some schools of hinduism, such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the goal is seen as developing, or rather recovering, a personal realation with God at the level of the soul. But most see the goal as unity with God, liberation from the lower(created) nature. Realization of Brahman implies becoming Brahman, since Brahman is 'One without a second'.

 

Which turns people from relying upon humans (and or themselves) to relying upon God....

 

Swami Sivananda once said that when God gives himself to someone, he first takes away all his possessions and worldly comforts... Of course he may have been referring to the attachement to these things than the things themselves.

 

The story of Adi Shankara is beautiful indeed. He had just bathed in the Ganges and had come out, clean and fresh, when a chandala, an untouchable, walked across his path. Shankara inadvertently said, "Gacha! Gacha! (go away!)" The man then looked at the great acarya and sang the following two verses:


O best among brahmins, by saying "Gacha gacha" what is it that you wish to distance from yourself? Do you wish one lump of food to move away from another lump of food or the spirit to move from the spirit?

Just as the sun is reflected in every open water body, so too the light of the soul reflects in all things, where then did this confusion come in your mind that this is a brahmin and this is an outcast? The same sun reflects in the pristine waters of the Ganges and the gutters and ditches in the slums. Wether water is held in a golden vessel or a clay pot, it is still the same.


Hearing this, Shankara immediately realizes his error and prostrates before the chandala and sang the following extempory composition, known as the maneesha panchakam (alog with the previous 2 verses):

A person who is firmly established in the identity with the self, which is the witness of the 3 states (waking, dreaming and deep sleep), which is in all objects from the great bBramha (the creator) to the tinyiest ant, the invisible witness of all; he alone is truly a great guru, whether he be a brahmin or an untouchable.

I am quite convinced that he is the great Master, be he a Brahmin or an
outcaste, who, dwelling on the pure and infinite Brahman thinks of
himself as that very Brahman, who manifests as the whole universe, which appears to consist of different things, due to ignorance and the three Gunas (Satva, Rajas and Tamas).

I am fully convinced, by the Guru's words, that the entire universe is
a transitory illusion. The human body is only given only to constantly
meditate on the infinite and supreme, with a serene and unquestioning
mind, and thus to burn in that sacred fire the sins with which the
human is born.

In my opinion, that Yogi is great who has clearly grasped within
himself the truth and quality of the supreme Being, through which all our
activities are performed, and whose effulgence is hidden by ignorance, even as the sun's halo is covered/hidden by the clouds.


I am convinced that whoever is completely at peace with himself by fixing his mind upon the Lord, who is being worshipped by Indra and other devatas, has not only understood, but also himself merged in that great Brahman.

Oh Lord ! In the form of body I am your servant. In the form of life, O
three-eyed one, I am part of yourself. In the form of soul, you are
within me and in every other soul.I have arrived at this conclusion through
my intellect and on the authority of the various scriptures.

In conclusion, Sankaracharya offers a prayer to that Lord:

O Siva, I am your servant from the bodily standpoint, from the standpoint of a jeeva I am a part of you, from the standpoint of the soul, you alone are in me and in everything else, this is my conclusion based on the scriptures and my own intellect.

 

or he might not take them away , but puts us in a situation where we are forced to see the reality- that we are completely surrendered unto him and it really does not matter if we say we are surrendered unto him or not.

I guess this makes us more humble and tolerant of others...knowing that whatever we have is God's and not ours makes us ofcourse feel the need to share.

 

Whatever the case, it doesn't justify the repression of 'un-touchables' or anyone else. It is absurd to say that such treatment makes people either less attached or more likely to find God. It is more likely to make tham bitter and cynical.

And also. it isn't just one individual we're talking of here - whole families would be affected. The idea that God is taking away the material facility/attachment of a whole massive social group in order to lead them to himself doesn't really hold water.
IMHO the average starving person is more likely to turn to crime than to God. And why not if they live in a society that labels them inferior from birth and offers them nothing.

 

I agree BlackBillBlake. And the fact that Christianity is becoming popular amongst the "untouchables" could be seen more as a sign from God. Christianity's inclusion of all people regardless of class is more a reflection of the devine.

 

Yes - The mission of Mother Terresa shows the truth of that - and in the days of the muslim conquest of India, many deserted hinduism for islam because they thought that would be a way out of the whole caste system - a system which as we know, is actually an abuse in itself.

Many more recent hindu saints - Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda - have said that the spiritual path is all-inclusive and should recognize no 'caste' -but as usual, those who use religion simply as a way of keeping up their own positions of privelige and power don't listen. It seems that such teachings have failed to penetrate the consciousness of the average hindu. So they end up stuck with an archaic and corrupt system. And it doesn't even satisfy the sensibilities of a basic humanism - let alone Divine love and compassion.

 

Hinduism does not discriminate on the basis of caste. As one of the Jagadguru shankaracharyas once said, the purusha suktam says that the shudras came from the feet of god and it is always to the feet that we direct our worship and our pranams.

As for the muslim rulers, many of them forced large numbers Hindus to convert at swordpoint. And the Christian missionaries that come to India take advantage of the poverty and hunger of these people to entice them into Christianity - if you become a christian I will give you food and a job. Most of these churches have annual target numbers for conversion. Of course that isnt caste based, it is more based on economy, but many of them target the repressed castes.

The point is, anyway, whatever faith you may be, there is no room for exclusion. Religion teaches to expand - vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is one family). That which narrows our field is not religion.

adi shankara said - mata cha parvati devi, pitadevo maheshwara. Bandhava sarva bhaktashcha swadesho bhuvana trayam. (My mother is Parvati, my father is Siva. All devotees are my relatives, the whole universe is my homeland.) And to add to that, the definition of a bhakta from bhagavad geeta chapter 12 - Who hateth nought Of all which lives, living himself being, Compassionate, from arrogance exempt, Exempt from love of self, unchangeable By good or ill; patient, contended, firm In faith, mastering himself, true to his word, Seeking Me, heart and soul; vowed unto Me, That man I love! (Sir Edwin Arnold's beautiful translation).

 

Maybe not in theory, but in practice there is much discrimination. The question raised by Phil uk in this thread was about the repressive treatment of 'un-touchables' - which is clearly discrimination based on caste, or lack of it, practiced by people who call themselves hindus and are part of hindu culture in the wider sense.