Understanding Indian Culture?

I'm fascinated by Indian culture and would really like to learn about it and, more importantly, properly understand it. The problem is it just seems so confusing and complex and most things I read just add to my state of being completely perplexed. Many books have a habit of talking about things without explaining them. So what I'm really asking is can anyone recommend a good, starter book that will make things more clear - an Idiot's Guide to India?

... The caste system, Hinduism, deities, ashrams, eunuchs, sadhus, puja, Krishna, Ganesha .... my head is full of things it doesn't fully understand. ENLIGHTEN ME!!! ;-)

mala, a mandir is a temple with an idol of a particular god, whereas an ashram is place where there is a guru who teaches disciples...an ashram is a place where u can learn yoga,meditation etc..

A truly excellent "idiot's" guide to India is "Culture Shock: India," which is part of a series of books designed to give business travelers and ex-pats some good information. This book is one of the best introductions to India/Indian culture I've ever read (and I've read a lot of them). It's just about everything you would want to know without a deluge of details (as often happens when discussing India).

Try reading the introduction to the Lonely Planet Guide to India; there are lots of answers there, some of them to questions you haven't yet thought about.

mala, you have made far too many sweeping statements and generalizations for me to point out individually. I will point out just two :

There are specific lines in the Vedas ( purusha sooktam verse no 5 )( you have actually quoted this verse in your post !!! ) which point out the caste system as created by the original Creator). Manu was not the originator. Manu himself said he inherited the system.

Yes, I will agree that the practise of the caste system is much corrupted and cruel today, as compared to bygone times.

Two : Krishna was a myth

Only Western writers (and Indians educated in the West/Western influenced convent schools) have written that Krishna was a myth. I will present only a single piece (out of several) of evidence to support my statement :

To all Indians, educated and illiterate, Krishna was a real person, an avataar of Vishnu... who lived from 20th July 3227 BCE till the midnight of 13th/14th February 3102 BCE. Read the story about the day Krishna died. It happens to be the day that all calendar makers (tens of thousands) in India set their counters to "day one" (of Kali Yuga) Bear in mind that there were no telephones in 3102 BCE. There are no telephones EVEN TODAY at some of these calendar makers' villages !! If the bean counters on several independant counters ALL TALLY TO THIS DAY..... how can someone write that Krishna was a myth ??

This counting system also happens to be oldest living practise in human history .... a fact that many Western writers cannot digest or refuse to accept.

Archaeological evidence has been unearthed off the Dwaraka coast by S.R. Rao, of the Arcaeological Survey of India from 1988 to present. He has discovered what could have been Krishna's Dwaraka submerged in the sea.

I agree that you may have picked up stuff from the web. Western writers all had their reasons to believe/disbelieve or portray/distort whatever they read about Ancient India.... its an endless debate..... better not done on IndiaMike.... which is a really good site with very good people.

If your interested in the viewpoints of Hindus in India, who are striving to practise so-called Hinduism(this itself is a foreign word) which is nearer to the ancient ways, you could read about the book titled :Hindu Dharma

You have quoted this verse from the purusha sookta. The "some god" is a concept we call "the primordial man" This so-called "man" represents the entire Universe as his body. Really, he is nothing but the whole Universe personified. The head of this 'person' are the brahmins, the hands are kshatriyas, the thighs are vaishyas, the feet are shoodras. Can any person live comfortably without the two feet? Or without two hands ? Or without the head ? If a thorn pierces the foot, will not the head experience a tear in the eye ? This verse shows (means) that all are but different limbs of the same divine body. There is NO discrimation here. The head is never stated to be more important than the foot.

One thing : Shiva was not a "human being" who "walked the Earth" like Raama and Krishna, who were "born" as "humans" to guide the people of the day. Shiva was and is an allegorical ideal ....... if you say Shiva is mythical, that may be accepted.

poojaa is a formalized-ritualized way to worship a personified-divinized statue/photo. It is not Vedic in origin. The Rishees (founders of the faith) never performed any poojaas cuz they were not invented back then. Poojaas were in vogue around the time of Veda Vyaasa, i.e. 5600 yrs ago. Its not clear who started them or when they were recommended first.