Hinduism Basics

I have tried to answer some of the interesting questions sent by you.

If u need any further clarification, I shall be glad to give them.

QUESTION. Who is God and how can we know him?
ANSWER God (Ishwara) is the Intelligent Spiritual Principle who pervades this whole universe. Ishwara (God) is the principle of Universal Intelligence. He is often referred to as Sat-Chit-Ananda.His power (Shakti) is manifest as this universe. He sustains and also can withdraw this whole universe into "Laya" or dissolution. That intelligent principle is called Ishwara or Brahman. That one Brahman has 3 powers/roles. Hinduism know only one Ishwara.Just as one man can have many roles of husband to his wife, manager in his office and father to his son. The same man performs 3 roles and is known by the 3 names of "Husband", "Father" and "Manager". He even has different "forms", as it were, wears different attire in the office (a suit lets say) and infomal clothes at home and so might look apparently different in his various roles . But the man in question is only one.

Similarly, the same Ishwara dons the mantles of Srishti (mainfester of the Cosmos), Sthithi (Sustainer of the Cosmos) and Laya (Dissolution of then Cosmos). As the first role he is known as Brahmaa. In the second role, that same Ishwara is known as Vishnu and in the third that very Ishwara is known as Shiva. Hinduism has ONLY ONE Ishawara, not two.

A useful analogy is to think of this whole Universe as the "body" of Ishwara. You (or any particular object or person) are a part of Ishwara just as a wave is part of the ocean.

Besides these 3 aspects of the One Ishwara, there are several subtle beings called devatas (roughly corresponding to the word "angels"). But these devatas are not literally God. They are just "helpers" of Ishwara and perform "minor" roles like a government officer executes his official duties. There are several such devatas. Just imagine if a country like India has some thousands of IAS officers, what to speak of the whole cosmos with billions of galaxies. The scale is mind-boggling and so are the number of these minor devatas.
Moreover the Hindu word used for these devatas is "33 koti devatas are there". The word "koti" in sanskrit means "class or category" ; it is wrongly interpreted as "crore". But the Hindu idea is that there are 33 classes of these higher beings who perform various "tasks" in the Cosmos". Just like you have a Class I govt. officer, then Class2 under-secretary etc and so on - The analogy fits closely.
For this reason, (because Ishwara is omnipresent and omnipotent and infinite in extent) it is wrong to confine (house-arrest ?) Ishwara to a particular place called heaven etc.

You are the individual. He is the total. Like a tree is one unit "individual", while The Forest is the Total. A tree is part of the forest. You ( and all this Cosmos) are a part and parcel of God. There is no extra-cosmic God-in-heaven.

You are the wave. Ishwara is the ocean. A wave is part of the ocean. And it rises in the ocean. It finally dissolves into the ocean. Similarly you (wave) are born of (God) and go back to God. If the wave thinks that the ocean is somewhere in heaven, the wave is mistaken. In fact the ocean is all round the wave, and in and through the wave itself. Similarly Ishwara is all-pervading, everywhere; but we need to develop the right wisdom to see the truth of Ishwara.
Ishwara (God) is not in any specific locale called heaven. Because if we give Ishwara an address called "heaven", the way i have an address "mumbai", then we have to also give him a street address and house no. That limits God to a small finite space and is ridiculously wrong. God is infinite and can never be confined to a particular place called heaven and, that too, a small place inside heaven on a little throne.

Because that would make him one more puny creature in the universe. So the whole "God-in-heaven" idea is totally wrong. We HAVE to make proper use of our God-given intellect and not believe any such ideas blindly. This "God-in-heaven" idea should be interpreted figuratively, but not literally like the Church does.. Like if we say that "this soldier is a lion" implies "this soldier has leonine strength" but it does not mean that he also literally has a mane and claws and a tail etc !!So we must avoid literal interpretation. The "God-in-heaven" idea should be seen along with the statement "the kingdom of heaven is within you" (Both statements from the bible). then it makes sense. It implies that in the pure and tranquil heart of a true devotee, the presence of omnipresent Ishwara is easily felt. Such constant appreciation of God and living in service to him is itself the real state of heaven.

This heaven can and has been attained HERE aand NOW, not in some post-mortem (after death) state, by many like Buddha, Sri Ramakrishna etc. This "heaven-like" state has been attained by the a few great sages of other traditions too like Jalaluddin Rumi ( a great sufi muslim mystic who was harassed by the mullahs) and so many others. Hinduism emphatically declares that here in this very world, the highest spiritual truth can be 100% realized. All the sages i have been quoting as examples should suffice.


Hinduism says much more on this ...but for now this is sufficient.

QUESTION How can we know God ?"
ANS For a Hindu, there are 3 independent sources of True Knowledge of Ishwara. Only when a given idea about spirituality and Ishwara is in accord with, it agres with, and is not contradicted by, these 3 sources of authentic knowledge, then alone that idea is accepted as "truth". These 3 things are

1."Yukti" (logic and reason)
2. "Anubhava" (Personal experience)
3. "Shruti" (the scriptures containing combined wisdom born of the experiences and knowledge gained by hundreds of saints and sages and spiritual geniuses like Adi-Shankara, Buddha and Guru Nanak etc over several thousands of years etc.)

More elaborately on these....
1. One can gain a certain amount of knowledge about God (Ishwara) through proper exercise of our intellects. In fact, Ishwara has endowed only man with a full-fledged intellect, And it would be foolish not to use it and instead go in for some blind beliefs. There are several amazing "Reason-based" Hindu texts like the Vedanta Sutras, which employ reason to give some deep insights into the nature of oneself, the World and God. Therefore before you accept any fact about God, see if it accords with reason and logic. ( all scientific thinking is also included in this but its domain is the physical world while vedanta-logic of hinduism gives us knowledge of Ishwara, Atma (true nature of oneself (to questions like "am i just this body ? what am i really ? " etc) We have to be very bold in using reason to reject any wrong religious or spiritual ideas even if we have invested our emotions into them. This may be painful sometimes if our emotional investment in high in a given idea. But its always better to let go of illogical and unscientific ideas and subject every idea to critical scrutiny.

For example, the biblical idea that "God created Adam and then created Eve from a small part of the rib of Adam" is a part of biblical Church doctrine. This is clearly an illogical idea since the unanimous voice of science and reason says that biological evolution led to the extinction of older species like dinosaurs etc and over a period of time, man arose. (incidentally, it may interest you to know that when dinosaur bones were first discovered by scientists, the church claimed that they were planted there by satan to mislead people. Thats what i call unreason. So never accept such blind superstitious beliefs opposed to reason. Also this idea that Eve is just a part of Adam has led to great oppression and denigration of women in christian societies based on illogical and unreasonable biblical doctrines. The relative freedom enjoyed by women today in christian societies has been secured after a bitter and long-fought battle against an oppressive church by enlightened women in the west. Such wrong doctrines about Adam and eve etc are to be rejected because they fail the test.

2.Now after Yukti, another authentic source of knowledge of God is "anubhava" (personal spiritual inspirations and insights.) See if you are able to actually appreciate atleast to some extent what is being said in the Gita and Upanishads, in a direct, self-evident manner. Also if meditation and prayer and self-discipline are practised (these are all called "sadhana" in hinduism), we can gain great clarity about the truth of Oneself and Ishwara (God). Many great hindu sages like ramakrishna parahamsa and ramana maharshi were stalwarts in this regard. But remember that all such clarity gained by oneself must be cross-checked against whether it tallies with yukti (reason) and shruti (the word shruti means the wisdom of the sages of india recorded in the upanishads etc.) so one can't claim any whimsical fancies and hallucinations and visions to be true unless they agree with reason and the wisdom of those who have already been on the same spiritual path (of sadhana, meditation etc).

3. Great spiritual geniuses and saints have blessed the land of India and their testimony is recorded in the Upanishads, Buddhist sutras, Guru Granth Sahib, the Gita etc. Our own experiences, beliefs and conclusions can never contradict the wisdom contained in these Indian scriptures. We can check our own ideas against theirs, we can compare notes and thus gain the same spiritual knowledge ("jnana" or "vijnana" means spiritual knowledge) of our oneness with God, through a keen and open-minded study of these scriptures from a proper person who is able to correctly unfold the meaning of the Upanishads etc.

QUESTION. Why is it that there are different paths to God and not one universal path that he gave?

A. There is only one "path" to God. That is through Jnana or spiritual wisdom. This wisdom is contained most clearly in the Upanishads and other indian religious scriptures of other indian religions too. This spiritual knowledge makes us directly see and appreciate our oneness and unity with Ishwara.

However this jnana (spiritual knowledge) can be acquired only by a person who is fulfills some pre-requisites. He should be committed to ahimsa (non-violence in thought, word and deed), then he should have self-discipline and committed to a principled and ethical life.
Now there are many "paths" or disciplines to acquire this fitness for jnana depending on the temperament of the person. Selfless service, disciplines like prayer and meditation onIshwara are different useful disciplines, maybe sometimes called "paths" by some people. We need a combination of all these "paths".

The Gita mentions that "sva karmanaa tam abhyarcha siddhim vindati manavaha" which means, if a person faithfully fulfils all the duties of his life that come his way in a spirit of service/worship unto me that itself is enough to give a man the fitness (siddhi) for wisdom. There is a diversity of paths to gain the spiritual fitness. But all paths converge finally into the one path of acquiring spiritual wisdom and knowledge.


QUESTION Why are more than 36 crore "gods" worshipped in India ?
A. I have already answered this. They are merely higher beings who perform certain cosmic duties. Like the "Angel" Gabriel who is common to Islam and Christianity. The question arises because of not understanding some of the basics of what Hinduism is all about.

Q. Why did Krishna(being a god) lust behind women while watching them bathing?

A. I will stick to a brief answer for now. Krishna was all of 8 yrs when this is said to have happened according to the Bhagavatam. I would say it needs a strange perverse type of a
mind to be able to see lust in the pranks of an 8-yr old mischievous kid.

Krishna was not "God" but an avatara. (i.e., a special manifestation of Ishwara in his own creation for the purpose of re-establishing Dharma or righteousness.). He get as much love and adoration as Ishwara (God) but he is not identically equal to God. This corresponds to some extent to the idea that Christ is the "son" of God. For a Christian, since he does not know the word avatar, we might put it as "Krishna is a Son of God."

But mind you, its not at all true that there is only one son of God or any such thing. Krishna himself clearly says in the Gita that there were many Avatars before him and MANY to come (he did not say there is only one more to come.) Buddha too says in the Anguttara Nikaya that "countless are the buddhas who have preached the Dhamma before me and countless are the Buddhas to come. Be a light unto yourself and make your spiritual future" A hindu accepts and reveres Christ as "one" such avatar. By no means the only one neither the last. In fact the Hindu himself smiles in good humour when such claims are made that "so-and-so is the one and only son of God or prophet or whatever" because the Islamic fundamentalist is equally vocal in his claim that Mohammed is the "last and the latest" prophet.

It is a typical frog-in-the-well attitude to assume that Ishwara would have given only one spiritual genius for the whole world and that too in only one particular country, Israel. What about China, India and all other countries ? Oh ! poor India and China with all its billions? No luck for them or what ? Thats too partial of God, not to speak of it being plain illogical and not provable.

If there is any one boon this modern globalised world teaches us it is that "SPIRITUALITY AND HOLINESS, PURITY, LOVE AND COMPASSION ARE TO BE FOUND IN MANY RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS AND ARE NOT A MONOPOLY OF ANY ONE TRADITION."

Q. . Could Shiva(being a god) make a mistake and behead his own son?
A. In respect of these various stories called the "Puranas" of Hinduism. They are merely
stories for less educated people who need more time to be ready for the Highest Vedanta. These stories are generally interesting and have a message to convey. Focus on that message. All the such stories are not be taken literally. Adi Shankaracharya the foremost exponent of Hinduism who revitalised Hinduism in 800 AD, says that these stories are
"arthavada" i.e., only figurative and not at all literally true. But they often have a deeper moral or spiritual truth which is sought to be conveyed. The target audience for such Puranas was the less educated Hindus who were not yet in a position to directly understand the Highest Truths of Jnana of the Upanishads.

Regarding the above story and other similar stories, the Siva Purana says that Shiva only played the various roles even as an actor plays out the script. In other words, the actor knows all along, the whole story and his own role. But he still playfully enacts the role. This is known in Hinduism as "leela" (play-acting). So the Siva Purana calls the above story as also others Siva-leela or the play of Shiva. Also remember that all such stories finally end in a win-win situation for all concerned, beheading nothwithstanding !! So Shiva did not make any "mistake". One needs to read the whole text instead of out-of-context looking at such stories and stuff.

Incidentally, i thought i should dwell a little on the order of precedence in the scriptures of Hinduism. Just as we have a subcourt, then a high court and then a supreme court, and the final word is with the supreme court and it can overrule the lower court judgements;

Similarly, in Hinduism, the Upanishads are the first and Highest authority. then the others come.

1. Upanishads also called Vedanta
2. Rest of the Vedic hymns and verses
3. Gita
4. Puranas and Smritis

So in the above hierarchy, the Upanishads have the highest authority while the Puranas and Smritis are low in importance and authority. Only if they agree with Upanishads, their statements are accepted. Whenever there is an apparent clash between two ideas of say the Purana and the Upanishad, the view of the Upanishads being the most logical, reasonable, it prevails. In fact, one amazing thing in this scheme of things is that the core Hindu ideas of the Upanishads are totally free of any blind beliefs and narrow-minded-ness. That is why they appeal very much to the modern mind. (provided its being used ofcourse !) ...So thats about the basic order of importance of Hindu scriptures.


Q. . Why is Shiva's penis worshipped?
A. This is a malicious canard spread by a few Christian missionary-inspired anthropologists. Nobody worships Shiva's penis. Ask the questioner to bring forward one hindu among 700 million hindus in this country to say that he actually thinks he is worshipping the penis when he goes to a temple. he won't find even ONE such person. It is not unlikely that obsession with sexual thinking gives rise to such questions.

Besides, the Hindu scriptures themselves which talk of the Shiva Lingam have a totally diferent explanation. The word "linga" in sanskrit means "symbol" or "sign". (in hindi "chihn").

What does the Linga symbolise ?
I will answer that from what the Upanishads say. Suppose you have made a clay pot, and a clay spoon and various other toys and dolls out of clay. And lets assume they are not fired in a kiln. In other words they are still like atta-dough, totally malleable. And then you decide to just mix all of them like you do with atta. then what happens. All the forms get mixed up and merged , you get just a LUMP of clay.

Now, Ishwara takes all these forms of all objects and life in this Universe and of men and women and also devatas. So, which form best represents Ishwara.

Go back to the clay analogy. Which form best represents clay ? Well one answer would be that - just combine all the forms into ONE "lump form"". that One form which includes all the forms and represents the sum total of everything that is there in the Universe. This is therefore SYMBOLICALLY represented as a round or oval Linga. Thus the linga symbolizes the fact that all though God alone has assumed all these forms (even of all these minor devatas and so many divnine forms too, animate and inanimate objects, everything...), ultimately, all forms merge and become formless and become one and indistinguishable in the Linga. So the UNITY of God behind all the various forms;, this idea is represented by the Linga. Its a very beautiful and meaningful representation of Ishwara. This alone is the meaning of the linga as authoritatively proved by the testimony of the Upanishads. Hinduism can't be blamed if some perverts want to fantasise whatever comes to their mind, upon seeing the linga !

Q. Is eating Bhang during Holi recommended by the gods?
Eating bhang during holi is not sanctioned anywhere by Hinduism. I am from the south of India and i have never even seen bhang being consumed on holi. (ofcourse i have heard of this practice.) So it must be a silly custom which is not justifiable. Nothing to do with religion. Its like asking why do some Hindus drink ? Better ask them, not the Hindu religion. But hey, maybe i can think of some funny reason why this started in northern india. You know the fact that the Islamic invasions laid waste all of north india. The south was saved by the north bravely facing the brunt of the invasion. Not ONE major hindu temple or architectural marvel was left standing in the whole of north india, barring the odd ruin. Go to the south, and you will several massive temples, sometimes in even little villages. The difference is obvious and so is the cause viz., islamic vandalism.

Very similar to what happened to the twin towers of new york. Anyway, so, on holi day; its a spring season festival (march); we are supposed to be joyous and happy. But the poor chaps, the hindus of north india did not find any reason to rejoice seeing the whole land laid waste. So the only way they could easily forget their sorrows was to take this bhang thing and make a brave attempt to smile during holi, with all the rape, loot and plunder all around !?

I think that answer is sufficient for now.

Q. Did God(who is Holy) create Sin?
A. No.It is our own folly born of ignorance of what is truly in our interest, that we go and make mistakes, some really terrible mistakes caled "papa" in Hinduism. Better not to blame God for our own folly. There is no correct equivalent for the word "papa" in english. it is often wrongly translated as "sin" which is a very guilt-ridden and judgemental word. Anyway so we pay the price for papa-karma (wrong deeds). the law of karma is infallible. "as u sow so shall u reap. sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" (biblical statements). But hinduism does not label anyone a sinner. Everything is in your hands. YOu had done some good in the past, so you are reaping the benefit in the form of getting "lucky" and landing in good situations. So keep doing good if you want to keep getting lucky. Ofcourse mind you, there is a time lag between the right action and the hidden result. The opposite holds for wrong action (papa) which lands one in bad luck and other problematic situations.

According to Hinduism, the root cause of people committing even grievous wrong deeds, is ingnorance of one's own true spiritual nature. And so one misses the fact, that in hurting others in anway, we are actually causing harm only to ourselves But once he gains wisdom, he is spontaneously on the right side ALWAYS ! Examples who showed this spontaneity, Buddha, Ramakrishna, etc.
I will answer 6,7, later...

6. Did God create sickness?
7. If God is infinite and he created man who is bound by death, is God playing games?
Man is not bound by death. The body dies . But the psychological entity (jiva roughly equal to the word "soul") continues onwards and is impelled by its deeds (papa-punya) to assume a further body.

8. If man'soul continues forever, why did God give man a body?
A. To provide a platform for further evolution into a spiritually mature being. The Buddha or Christ represent that final stage of evolution which EVERYONE will eventually reach, given sufficient time. This evolution may take several births to get completed. The Buddha was the Bodisattva in his earlier births - a compassionate being but not yet fully matured. And in the final birth he attained wisdom and became a Buddha. Same is the potential for ever human being.

9. Why did God create animals?
For the same reason that he created Man. Actually the question is common in bible circles and has a well-known background. According to the bible, man created this world and animals etc, purely for human enjoyment and consumption. This is a dangerous and wrong idea. And is one of the important reasons why western nations tend to prey upon weaker nations (colonialism) and over-exploit the environment to satisfy their insatiable greed. Why ? because "this whole world is for MY consumption. God created it that way." This is all totally incorrect.

10. Is Satanism also a religion and a path to reach God?
Please describe in detail what exactly is Satanism....i have never heard of satanism in india. maybe its some perverse cult operating in the west ?

11. Are Voodoo and Witchcraft also ways of reaching God?
A. Quite clearly they are perverse paths which take a person away from God. Again, i don't know about know such paths, neither do i feel the need to.

12. Do spiritual bodies exist? What about ghosts?
A. Well again, there are terminology problems here ....hmm...lets say that the Hindu idea
of sukshma-sarira (literally subtle body) which everyone of us possesses , is being talked about. Then the answer is yes to spiritual bodies. As for ghosts, well, anyone who has died an unnatural death or caused immense suffering to himself (like suicide etc) is penalised according to the law of karma to become a ghost for a limited period of time. After some atomenemt,he again resumes his existence in another normal body as per his karma left-over. If his balance karma is positive, then he attains another birth in a happy family to continue his spiritual progress. A normal death does not lead to ghosthood.

13. I am surrounded by spiritual bodies and do they have an influence on him? (they say the movie "The Excorcist" is true, is it?)
Question unclear. I have not seen the said movie. But in general all such ghost movies are nonsense and exaggerate and distort whatever kernel of truth is there, if at all.

14. Is there a Kingdom of Heaven and Hell or is there rebirth?
Both are there. Heaven and hell are temporary states after death which some "souls" pass through, not all. Just as on this world you have a Holiday Inn, if you do enough good deeds, then you go to heaven for a "holiday out" for some time and then have to come back. Remember if you try to park yourself in Holiday Inn, you will get booted out after sometime. The same goes for heaven. ITs pleasant but not permanent and above all TO ENJOY SOME FANCY PLEASURES IN HEAVEN IS A LOW THING AND IS NOT THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF SPIRITUAL LIFE AND RELIGION" For a man of true wisdom like Buddha, wherever he lives, that itself is heaven.


15. Do you know anybody who has crossed over to death, seen it and returned back to life to describe what it is like when we are dead?
A. After-death experiences are not uncommon. People are reported medically dead and then they manage to revive. I have talked to one and heard of a few clear accounts of other Hindus who report an after-death experience, he sees some of his Hindu religious figures and devatas and also some long-dead relatives etc, and a vast benevolent ocean of light etc. When a Christian dies, maybe he sees visions of Christ and clouds etc. No big deal !

16. If God has put in us a conscience which pricks us each time we do wrong, do we need preachers & teachers of righteousness?
A. We need preachers only to remind us to listen to our own conscience.

17. Can these preachers take credit of all that is already in man's conscience?
A. No. But, in certain situations, a dilemma can present itself where both the alternatives seem ok. and yet a doubt remains as to which is more ehtical and in line with dharma.(righteousness), then maybe other disinterested well-wishers can help you gain clarity.

18. Can man be isolated from sin?
Yes. Because he was never "joined" to it in the first place. But his ignorance about God and his own spiritual nature needs to be removed, then he will in a natural way automatically refrain from wrong deeds. I repeat that this idea of "sin" is too judgemental and better to say "this is right" and "this is wrong" .We should avoid saying "This is bad and sinful" and "this is good." The former words are more constructive and less judgemental and help us overcome our limitations. The latter words like sin, bad etc breed guilt and a low self-esteem which can make the problem worse. Anyway in Hinduism we don;t have all these judgemental words. We can stick to Rightn deeds (Punya) and Wrong deeds (papa).

19. Do you think God is partial? Does he distinguish between someone who is born in a palace and has moved out in search of God and someonewho is born out of a `one night stand` between two teenagers and sohas too many problems to deal with (so cannot seek him)?

No, we can't blame Him for anything. We should not bring in any extra-cosmic "God" idea because there is no God-in-heaven sitting up there in the clouds on a throne like the bible describes. This has to be interpreted figuratively and not taken literally.

Everything has a cause. If a person is born in a well-to-do family, he has only his own past actions to thank for it. So why blame "God" for anything. Our past has made our present. But how we best exercise our free will in the present, will make our future. Nothing is pre-destined.

Everything is a result of your own actions. Prayer to God helps but it is also nothing but a "right action" and it too will fetch us wholesome results. And I may add that prayers of all religious traditions are quite all right. No one can say that Christian prayer alone works or that Hindu prayer alone works etc. Such ideas are to be rubbished. The truth
is that all prayers of all religions are ok.

There is no escape from the law of cause and effect. This is as scientific as you can get !

20. If God is not partial, then how can any man boast about his righteousness and deeds in front of God?
A. If a man is truly righteous how can he boast and be arrogant about his righteousness. Just looking up at the sky and seeing the vastness of this universe in which we are the puniest of specks, is enough to remove any illusions of self-greatness and pride. Humility naturally flows from true spiritual knowledge. Only ignorance breeds pride. Wisdom fosters natural humility.

Now that i have answered the questions raised. I am going to anticipate and myself raise some common misconceptions and questions about Hinduism and then answer them based on the Upanishads etc.

1. Why did Krishna(being a god) lust behind women while watching them bathing?
A I have already answered this. But a few additional remarks...Such questions are common in fundamentalist Christian circles (less among the liberal Christains who are in a minority) because of the guilt complex over sexuality which is there in Church-ordained Christianity.
Its a fundamental Christian doctrine that
a)sex is sinful.
b)And so Adam and Eve committed the "original sin".
c)From them all humanity has come.
d)So all humanity are born sinners.
e)So man needs to be saved.
f)Jesus saves

ALL SIX OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

The right statements are :
a) As long as there is trust and fidelty and mutual acceptance and seriousness about the relationship, there is nothing sinful about sex. But promiscuity is not right and there should be adherence to dharma.(righteousness) This is the Hindu view.
b) Adam and Eve never existed neither did the Eden Gardens (except at Kolkata to play cricket).So where is the question of any original sin ?
c)Humanity arose through evolution not from Adam and Eve. God "operates" in and through evolution and the laws of nature, not by random "miracles".
d) Since there is no original sin, there is no need to unfairly label ALL men sinners like the Church does. The day is not far when the Church can be sued in court for using such abusive language against all humanity without any basis. (There is also the funny possibility that if a human being is born by cloning (only one parent is required), then he is freed from sin, and he is not a sinner, since he was not born sexually. All this is a hilarious implication of treating sex as sinful like the Church does.)
e) Where is the question of "saving" anyone when there are no born sinners at all ? In case a person is given to wrong deeds, he is harming himself and needs to acquire better sense and reform himself.
That all there is to it. For someone who is more mature, they should pursue an intelligent life to gain spiritual wisdom. The word "saving one's soul" can only be such a figurative meaning. WE ALONE CAN SAVE OUR OWN SOULS. NO ONE ELSE CAN.

Ofcourse we need all the blessings and inspiration and guidance we can get from all great spiritual personages and their teachings. But we have to do the job ourselves. Krishna says "Udhdharet Aatmaanam .." meaning Lift yourself by your own efforts. Similarly Buddha says "Be a light unto yourself and work out your own spiritual growth."
Spiritual Wisdom (Jnana) alone leads to the goal, not just "believing" something or the other.

Q. Does Hinduism support the caste system ?
No. Definitely not. The most important scripture, the Upanishad, has no mandate for any such social system. The Gita mentions in passing that the system of varnas (categories) keeps in view the temperaments and duties (guna and karma) of people; there is no question of privilege or superiority of one caste over another or fixity with birth.

The institution of "varna" (roughly means caste) arose and finds mention in the social code books called "smritis", like yagnyavalkya smriti, manu smriti etc. These smritis are books with the least authority and importance; the smritis themselves say that "a given smriti is created by the thinkers of a given time and place to best serve the society of that time. Smriti texts do not have universal validity for all times and places." The exact equivalent in the modern context is the Constitution of India, which we keep amending to suit the needs of the time. This is THE SMRITI for today.

Therefore, whatever the constitution has to say on caste is, by definition, the "official" Hindu position on caste today. And assuredly, the modern smriti, the constitution was framed by the great modern Hindu thinkers like Rajagopalachari etc ( great Hindu thinkers ) and ofcourse Ambedkar (who was a Buddhist.) And their opinion is final on what modern Hinduism has to say about the caste system - these Hindu thinkers have totally rejected the caste system. The constitution says so. Period.

Unfortunately, although Hinduism has always tried to emphasise the spiritual unity of all men, Hindus themselves have failed to adhere to Hinduism. And considerable damage has been done to our society by the caste system. But one can hardly blame the religion for that.

Its a different matter that in many places in India, dominant higher castes still retain a stupid old prejudiced mindset. But the blame can hardly be laid at the door of Hinduism. If a father entreats his son to give up drinking and the son does not listen, we can hardly blame the father. Hinduism does not support the practice of the caste system but many ill-informed hindus do. But the fresh air of science and technology and modernity is quickly changing the situation for the better. Its as if, the tree of caste has been considerably axed, but is still standing. Its fall is only a matter of a few decades more.

Q. Does Hinduism support Sati ?
No. There are stray references in the Puranas to such occurrences, but never any endorsement; rather it became more widespread after the Islamic invasions led to widespread rape and kidnapping of women and their export as slaves to Persia and Baghdad. Its mentioned in a well-known Islamic historical account ( i forget the name) that there was an excess supply of slave men and women from India and the baghdad slave "market" was badly affected. In the face of such brutality, many indian women in medieval times seem to have been compelled to give up their lives rather than be enslaved, once their husbands and their armies lost in war.

And again, the word of Swami Vivekananda, Rammohun Roy and others who had made the deepest study of Hinduism, is to totally reject and condemn this medieval practice. Thats the final word on this practice. Its foolish to blame Hinduism for it.


Q. Why do Hindus worship idols since they are just made of stone ?
This is a really F.A.Q. Even Hindus these days are not very clear on this and are needlessly apologetic. In fact temple worship is a beautiful tradition which all Indians can be proud of. But shallow and unthinking criticism needs to be addressed..

I shall try to clarify this a little.

Take a well-known anecdote in Vivekananda's life. He went to the King of Khetri who went on criticising temple worship as superstition and all that. Vivekananda quietly listened for a while; then asked the king "You have a portrait of your late father hanging on this wall. Since its just made of canvas , can you please bring it down and spit on it and show it disrespect ? after all thats not really your father, anyway." The king was naturally taken aback. Vivekananda knew the power and worth of symbols. The King realized his hasty and judgmental evaluation of temple worship.

The fact is, that a temple altar is merely used as a symbol to gather one's mind and direct it towards God. In fact its a common sight to see a hindu devotee standing for a while before the the temple altar and then HE CLOSES HIS EYES. Surely if anybody thinks that God is actually literally present in the image; he would never close his eyes ; rather he would go on staring perhaps ! I never come to you, stand before you and then close my eyes and talk to you. But one actually does so in a temple. Because, a hindu knows obviously that God is not in the image but can be directly felt in his own mind/heart once the mind is gathered inwards by concentrating his mind for sometime on the altar. God's presence is to be felt in the heart and the altar/image merely facilitated this, helps in this process and makes us more prayerful and tranquil. Every Hindu worth his salt senses this fact, although he may not be able to clearly articulate all these sentiments using so many words like is being done here.

Each religion has its own forms of prayer. In Hinduism, many prayers like japam (repetition of Ishwara's names) and meditation (dhyana) etc don't employ any altar or image to invoke Ishwara. But in addition to these two prayer forms, we have another form called pooja (ritualistic prayer) in which Ishwara's presence and grace is invoked in an image. Then the hymns are recited and flowers are offered etc. All this is long-standing prayer tradition. Even Tibetan and Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhism have similar forms. Just like a christian has his holy water and sacrament and other ritualistic forms including "drinking the blood of Christ" and "eating consecrated bread as the body of Christ". Now a Hindu can also say that such blood drinking etc sounds very bizarre. But its all merely symbolic and so can be viewed empathetically. The same attitude of empathy should be adopted while viewing Hindu ritualistic forms like temple-based worship. In fact in many such Hindu rituals, the devotee ceremonially immerses the image in water, at the end of the ritual with a prayer to Ishwara " go back to dwell in my (devotees') heart". If a Hindu really thought that the image was God, how could he ever part with and even IMMERSE the image ? In fact in mumbai, after Ganesh Pooja, the devotees even exuberantly dance while immersing the image. Clearly they know what image worship is all about !
One more fact needs to be borne in mind. Temple worship is neither fundamental to Hinduism nor is it practised by all Hindus. In the Vedic and Upanishadic age ( 2000 b.c.- 0 a.d.) there were no temples around. They arose later during the Gupta age (200 a.d. onwards). Many Hindu groups like the Arya Samaj don't endorse temple worship and that too is Ok. Because any particular prayer form (like temple worship) need not be practised by EVERYONE. This is where Hinduism and all Indian religions in general differ radically from orthodox Christianity and Islam, wherein ONLY ONE prayer form is forced on everyone and said to be valid for ALL MANKIND. All other prayers of other religions are dubbed "satanic" or "superstition". This is clearly a very closed-minded frog-in-the-well position to take that everyone in the universe should pray exactly like I do. So some fundamentalists claim that while my prayer in a mosque is heard by God, a sincere Hindu prayer in a temple is not. Nothing can be more arrogant and illogical than this. God "listens" to all sincere prayer whether its a Hindu or christian or Islamic prayer, just as a father responds to his toddler child no matter how he addresses him.

I conclude here for now. In the normal course, a brahmachari (student of spirituality) take around 12 yrs to fully appreciate the Hindu Vedic vision. So whenever anyone tries to give shallow, half-baked criticsim of Hinduism, he should be asked "have you spent atleast a few years studying Hinduism from a proper teacher ?" If not, he has no locus standi to talk critically of Hinduism. Just as if a 10th standard student disparages Einstein's theory or relativity, it is laughable. But if he is open-minded enough to ask questions not with a view to find fault, but to understand what is being said, with a constructive atitude, then ofcourse he will also understand. Constructive questioning is in fact actually encouraged very much in Hinduism.

As regards debate and discussion between religions, its ofcourse a good thing. But what is sad to see is that the Church's official doctrine is to promote inter-religious "ecumenical dialogue as only a means to spread Christianity and convert other religionists to the faith", not to sympathetically understand other religions, with a "live and let live" attitude. With such an attitude articulated by the Pope himself (this is written in several of their publications), there is little purpose served by such dialogue.

QUESTIONS REGARDING CHURCH DOCTRINES :

Now for a few questions about the Church doctrines which I hold are probably distorted versions of Christ's original teachings. Some of them I have also referred to before. But, I am mentioning them all at one place again for convenience. these questions i would not ask of a christian or a muslim who has a liberal-minded respect for Hinduism, and other religions. His very attitude answers my questions and I feel an automatic kinship with such a person. But if someone has contempt and disrespect for Hinduism or a sense of superiority of their own religion over all others, then I would like to ask these questions.....

1. Is the story of Adam or Eve literally true or is it only allegorical ? Surely, the theory of evolution had thoroughly discredited this idea of an eden garden with an abrupt creation of Adam and Eve ?
2. Why is God so partial to man that he should create Eve the first woman from the rib or a mere part of man ? Is this not an insult to womanhood ?
3. If "God in heaven" created this earth, who created heaven ? If God created heaven too, then where was he before he created heaven ? Surely, not in hell ?
4. If God is seated on a throne in a locale called heaven, then he is a limited imperfect God, who has a physical size so as to fit onto a throne ?
5. Why did the Church oppose Science and burn scientists like Giordano Bruno at the stake for just speaking the truth about science, just because he contradicted the bible ? The horrors of the inquisition (burning people) was inflicted on hundreds of thousands of people in Latin America by Christian armies, just because the Incas and Aztecs followed a different religion ? Such genocide is worse than Hitler's pogroms against the Jews ? Why did christianity encourage and condone such "sinful" horrors ?
6. Since God is formless, how can God be addresses as "He" ? Is there anything like a "formless male" ?
6. Why can't God be female ? Why does he have to be a visualized as a male, a benevolent bearded gentleman etc living in heaven ?
7. According to Christianity, it is THE ONLY salvific faith ? But this means that Gandhiji goes to hell. Because he refused to reject Hinduism even though some people tried to persuade him. He said he was "a proud sanatani Hindu" till then end. How can anyone believe that even such great sages like Buddha and Ramakrishna are consigned to eternal damnation just because they refused to accept Christian beliefs ?
8. Why did God create "satan" ? Was he so powerless that he could not even control his own creation ?
9. Historical evidence clearly shows that reincarnation was official church doctrine until 200 A.D. Only after 200 yrs after the death of Christ, this was abruptly changed due to some political reasons. How can we change such fundamental ideas without rhyme or reason ?
10. Regarding protestantanism, why did Martin Luther change the Catholic policy of unmarried clergy ? The fact is that he fell in love with a nun and got married, after he broke away from the Vatican. This is not unacceptable to me. But is it all right to make such fundamental changes to religious doctrines based on one's own desires and limitations ?
11. If Christ died on the cross to "save" all humanity , then why can't the same be said of the martyrdom of Socrates in Greece who died for preaching truth. And Guru Tegh Bahadur (Sikh Guru) and others in the Indian context, who were killed by the fanatical Muslim king Auranazeb for refusing to convert to Islam ?
12. Why should we accept that God had only one son when the greatest teachers of spirituality like Buddha, Krishna and others clearly said that there are many incarnations of God in various countries and traditions ?
13. Guillible villagers are lured into Christianity by widespread use of "prayer boxes" into which a villager is asked to put a note containing his wish. Later the pastor secretly reads it and indirectly ensures the wish is fulfilled. Is not enacting such false miracles against the principle of Truth ?
14. Why do we need so-called miracles when every sunrise and every innocent smile of an infant is a miracle of God ? The very existence of this vast Cosmos with billions of stars, galaxies and planets is a miracle enough ? Compared to all these cosmic phenomena, all so-called miracles seem petty and unimpressive? So, why should we crave for any more miracles ?
15. Can't we reach a consensus that while Christ was a spiritual son of God, there are atleast others like Buddha just as great as him ?
16. Why did God create sin and then condemn all men to be born sinners, in the first place ? That sounds very unreasonable to me. To say that a new-born innocent child has already become a "born sinner" sounds wrong to me.
17. I would never allow anyone to die for my sake. I can't accept that someone has already made all my choices for me - that i should be born a sinner and also that someone dies on the cross supposedly for my sake, without my having any say in the matter ? All this sounds very wrong to me. It sounds like a crude attempt to emotionally manipulate and control me.

I have been rather frank in asking these questions. But my disagreement is with only with wrong ideas and blind illogical beliefs. Not with the people holding them. I accept the person but not his wrong beliefs. Because every human being is an embodiment of God.

Om Tat Sat