Hinduism
and the Vedas: misconceptions
T.R. ANANDAN
http://www.indiaserver.com/hindu/stories/13050903.htm
AN OPEN letter, published in a newspaper, even if
ostensibly addressed to a particular individual is in effect addressed to all
readers of the paper and is perhaps intended to be so. Thus an open letter
addressed to Mr. Bangaru Laxman in two parts by Ms. Gail Omvedt published in
this paper on October 10 & 11, could be construed as aimed at a wider
readership than the individual to whom it is addressed.
For a practising Hindu, considering the Vedas, the
Upanishads and the epics as the most sacred scriptures of Hindus in general and
this writer in particular, any comments in poor taste on those would be a deep
hurt of the religious sentiments. It is therefore necessary that certain points
germane to the subject be discussed in detail. Judging from the comments made,
it could be inferred that the author's knowledge of Vedas, acquired after a
cursory reading of its translation, is sparse and inadequate to comment on a
subject which has deep spiritual and cosmic importance. The tone and tenor are
palpably unrestrained and hostile.
Palpable ignorance
In the practice of religion and its tenets Hindus never
considered other religions as inferior nor held any as hostile. If anything, it
is the Semitic religions which consider those outside their fold as infidels or
unworthy of God's sympathy or even as sinners. The writer in the article had
raised the question ``why is there so much fixation on the Vedas.'' The question
betrays a palpable ignorance of the Hindu religion, its scriptures and its
practice. Even a schoolboy would proclaim the Vedas as the sacred scripture of
the Hindu religion in much the same way as the Bible is for Christians and the
Quran for Muslims.
India is a country of continental size inhabited by a
huge population of over 100 crores professing several faiths, chief ones being
Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism.
The present culture of the country largely relates to the respective religions
and the predominant one belonging to the Hindu religion has absorbed during the
course of the past two millennia certain ideas from other religions. This is
principally due to the close intermixing of members of other religions at social
level. Then there are variations from region to region mainly due to local
practices, thinking and interpretation of religious tenets by different
thinkers. But just as a thread holds together several flowers in a garland, the
core of the culture of Hinduism remains intact and is manifest in all regions
with local variations.
There have recently been some questions posed as to the
basis of calling Hinduism as a religion and whom all it encompassed in the
social setup. Religion in the strict sense of the term would mean the practice
of a definite system or form of faith and worship, distinctly different from
other systems with codes of conduct, do's and don'ts for the followers and even
procedures for settling civil and criminal issues arising from social
interactions. Barring Hinduism, all the rest believe in one book, one prophet
and one God. These have emerged in India as a result of spiritual evolution and
certain conflicts in the prevailing system. Even before the advent of the
Semitic religions, two distinct streams of thought different from the prevailing
one had taken shape after being propounded by thinkers like Gouthama Buddha and
Mahavira. Before the formation of these there were no specific religions in the
strict sense of the term and the people followed what was called the `Vedic
path' and called it `Vedic religion.'
Horizonal spread of the practice had given a certain
pan-India character to the system. Only after the formation of new indigenous
religions and introduction of the Semitic religions what remained of the
population came to be called the Hindus and their religion, essentially the
Vedic religion, got specifically identified as Hinduism. In fact, Hindu
religious text do not refer the religion as Hinduism but as Sanatana Dharma -
Universal path as distinct from others having names after the prophets who
propounded them. While the Hindus consider their country - Bharath - as holy
land in much the same way as Christians hold Jerusalem and Bethlehem and Muslims
Mecca, and their religion identified as Indian, they do not consider others
professing Hinduism elsewhere as not equals. At a certain point of history,
Hinduism was very much in vogue even in distant countries such as Indonesia and
Bali, and the inhabitants were considered as Hindus.
Irreconcilable differences
The conflict between Hindus and the followers of other
Semitic religions occurs not because the latter profess foreign religions but
because of irreconcilable differences in certain tenets of the two religions,
repudiating important beliefs of Hinduism and even ridiculing some of what Hindu
religion emphasises. For example, in Hinduism the country, Bharath, is
considered as a form of the goddess which is vehemently rejected by another
religion. Similarly Hinduism places emphasis on idol worship whereas other
religions do not approve of it. The differences in religious beliefs are not
extended to other spheres such as nativity and belonging as suggested by the
author.
Americans consider Bethlehem and Jerusalem as their
holy land and that does not make them less patriotic Americans. But the point is
that while holding Bethlehem and Jerusalem as their holy land, Americans do have
their own individual American culture which they hold dear to their heart. Even
racial differences are passionately maintained. The apartheid i.e. considering
American negroes as less American though they were in that country for
centuries, professing the same religion is an example in point. So if the
followers of the Semitic religions while considering Bethlehem, Jerusalem and
Mecca as their holy land are asked to adopt Indian culture as in the case of
Americans that should not be confused with patriotism.
The Indian culture does not mean Hindu culture or
worshipping Hindu Gods. Identification of a religion with a particular section
of the earth's geography is different from identification of the culture of the
particular section of the earth's geography. Asking to respect the culture of
their land does not by any stretch of imagination amount to suspecting one's
patriotism to his or her country as stated in the article.
The Hindus believe Rama and Krishna as avatars
(incarnations) of God on earth (God taking earthly life for specific purposes)
and as such consider them as Gods and worshipped. No true Hindu will ever take
objection to considering Rama and Krishna as divine. For example, disciples of
Sri Sai Baba consider him as incarnation of God. If someone other than a Hindu
should have objection in considering Rama and Krishna as divine it should be due
to ignorance of Hindu religious texts and beliefs. None including the Hindus
would consider Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed as mere social or historical
personalities but only as supremely divine.
Composite philosophy
Hinduism as stated earlier is considered as a religion
only in the context of indigenous and Semitic religions of identifiable
groupings; otherwise it is what had existed from time immemorial and continues
to exist to the present. The Vedic and the later Upanishadic teachings have only
imparted distinct character and philosophic thought and prescribed specific
result-oriented rituals for various purposes, temporal and spiritual. It's a
composite philosophy of various schools of thought, which had taken shape at
various times of history. To say that Shaivism or Vishnavism does not form part
of this composite philosophical conglomerate would be to betray ignorance of the
evolution of Hindu religiosity and spirituality through the years. It contains
even such streams as narcissism, nihilism and agnosticism advocated by some
savants. If one does not take to the study of Hindu philosophy and its spiritual
content in all its different aspects and schools and their birth at various
points of time no idea could be got about the depth and width of its magnitude
and the way it held sway over various sections of its practitioners over
thousands of years of history even after invasion by foreigners and introduction
of their religions even up to the present time.
Mere study of the history or geography of this country
or sociology or anthropology of the inhabitants over the past thousands of years
would not yield knowledge to appreciate the greatness of Hinduism and its
influence on the vast masses who had taken to the following of its various
systems and their intricate nuances.
The birth of several indigenous religions and the
respectful place offered to Semitic religions in the country on their arrival
are themselves proof of the catholicity of the original religionists of this
country and the value they attached to different religions, indigenous and
foreign.
To understand the greatness of Hindu scriptures, one
should understand the basic and fundamental point of what a mantra is. It is a
garland of letters composed in such a way as to acquire for one chanting the
same, power from the cosmic realm. Such power can be put to use for achieving
mundane objectives or spiritual advancement. Basically, the Vedas and other
scriptures are mantras for chanting for various applications. The Vedas are for
the conduct of various yagnas (Vedic sacrifices) for propitiating the devatas.
They also cause purification of the mind and rapid spiritual advancement. In the
Hindu pantheon, everything is looked upon as a form of God (Supreme Power).
The Hindu scriptures are all mantras for propitiating
devatas. For what purpose such propitiation is put to is for the person who uses
them to decide. In the normal context, they are chanted to acquire higher states
of spirituality by cleansing the person of all bad qualities. If one looks upon
the Vedas with the above basic knowledge, the purpose of the Vedas and other
scriptures becomes clear.
Mischievous insinuation
The writer again questions the ``need to claim that
Aryans originated in India''. It is a mischievous insinuation that the claim
that the Aryans originated in India itself started ``from 1930s after the Dalit
movements throughout India claimed an identity as original inhabitants''. There
is as yet no hard evidence to say that Aryans had indeed come to India from
outside. The most recent view of historians and researchers is that the Aryans
were original inhabitants of India. In a scholarly article ``Are the Vedic
Aryans aliens to India?'' Dr. M. Gopalakrishna Sharma of Hyderabad has stated
that the theory of alienism of Vedic Aryans is cooked up by some European
savants. States he: ``by the concoction of this theory they achieved tremendous
success, beyond their hope which served the double purpose as with two birds
with one shot. The first one is to create suspicion in the Indian mind about
their own nativity, and the second one is to inject a strong and permanent
feeling of natural distrust and dispute caused by the various racial genesis.''
Dr. Sharma further says ``and another factor, to be accounted here is that if at
all the theory of alienism of Vedic Aryans is taken for granted as correct, why
did they not mention at least the name of their motherland anywhere in the Vedic
literature or in other ancient scriptures?''
In the light of overwhelming opinion of experts the
statement of Ms. Omvedt, the author of the article that ``however that they came
from outside is hardly challenged by any objective scholars'' betrays total lack
of even a rudimentary exposure to the findings of researchers as stated above.
The author has spewed ridicule and contempt in describing the Vedas of which
only a translation has been read by her according to her own statement.
Considering the Vedas as holy is questioned on the ground that they contain
verses about ``success in war,'' ``cattle stealing,'' ``lovemaking,'' etc. Since
chapter and verse have not been quoted but a sweeping statement is made it is
not possible to discuss the rationale or context of anything contained in the
said verses or the Vedas as a whole. All that one could say is that the
statements made about the Vedas are positively blasphemous and scurrilous to the
extent of causing deep hurt to the religious sentiments of the Hindus who
consider them as the holiest of scriptures.
A punishable offence
The author apparently does not know that hurting the
religious sentiments of anyone is a punishable offence in this country. Take for
example the statements ``some of the hymns are positively pornographic'',
``actually the Vedas can be fun (including the Atharva Veda with its fascinating
spells for winning lovers, preventing child birth and so on)...'' etc. The
Hindus do not go into the literal meaning of the scriptures of other religions
but revere them as sacred in much the same way that their own scriptures are
held sacred. The author might have read reports of a fatwa issued by a Muslim
country for making certain references to the prophet considered as blasphemous
in a novel by a writer. The Hindus do not go to such extents, nay, even invoking
legal provisions for making disparaging statements about its scriptures but
would feel sorry for a person for not adequately equipping himself/herself about
the depth of the wisdom contained in the scriptures before making sweeping
remarks.
It is felt that a conscious attempt is on to drive a
wedge between the so-called upper castes and the lower castes and the Dalits and
to establish that the latter is despised by the former - to wean them away from
the mainstream Hindu religion. Some recent writings by some authors had even
tried to establish the tribals as not belonging to Hindu religion and had
justified their conversion to other religions. If one suspects that the attempts
could be to make a ``harvest of faith'' by conversions of the Dalits one could
not be faulted.
Caste hierarchy
Existence of caste hierarchy and social ostracism,
based on caste in the Hindu religion, is a development which has taken place
during several millennia due to the dynamics of social change, play of vested
interests, deep economic disparity, illiteracy and superstition and a woeful
absence of adequate leadership in spiritual, religious and social milieu.
Even in the Twentieth century, one of the most
developed countries of the world, America, had practised racism in its worst
form. As for India, serious attempts are on at governmental and social levels to
obliterate caste differences and these will soon be a thing of the past. It can
be asserted that neither the Vedas nor other Hindu scriptures lend any authority
for creation or perpetuation of castes in the present hierarchical form. Any
objective study of them would prove this.
|