Hindus Worship only one God. To know more, read on.

Hello.

 Before I start this blog post, let me clarify two things.

 

1.   This is about the reasons that make me feel lucky to be a Hindu.

2.   My blog will be limited to talking about Hindus and the Hindu religion (way of Life) as I am one of them and would not even touch any other religion. If one is looking for comparison or criticism of Hindu or other religions, then this is not the place

 Now the Blog.

         Once I was asked by someone (a Hindu) staying in a Gulf country that whenever religion comes up for discussion, all others following different religions tease that person for being a Hindu and worshipping 33 Koti (taken as Crores but actually means types) gods while they have everything fixed, one god, one prophet, etc. That person told me that one is answerless because what they say seems correct.

         That got me thinking about this topic. Is it so? What do I get being a Hindu that others don’t get? It dawned on me that there is just Nothing that should make a Hindu apologetic about being a Hindu. This is what (given in the next few paragraphs) I told that person.

          It is not difficult to answer people not following Hinduism, when they criticise a Hindu, jokingly or seriously about the Hindu way of worship. In fact, there is so much that one gets being a Hindu, which others don’t get. In a short span of thinking spree, I could count a series of benefits of being a Hindu. With my thought process at full speed, I explained my thoughts to that person who felt satisfied and empowered to answer people who teased him/her for being Hindu.

          Hindus do believe in only one god, called Brahmana or Paramatma who is symbolised in the sound of “Om”. We also believe that the Supreme Being is present in all of us because the supreme god, Brahmana, is the Supreme Soul, and we all are part of it, as it is said, “Aham Brahmasmi”. It does not mean “I am a god” rather, it means “I am part of Brahmana i.e., I am a soul or Spirit,” or in other words, I am one with the Supreme Soul as I am a miniature part of that Very Soul. It is a different thing altogether that they may worship the Parmatma in  its various forms depending on their individual choice.

          Later on, I did some research to reconfirm that Hinduism believes in only One God, Next two paragraphs were not part of the original discussion. They are part of the research that I carried out.

       That Hindus have one ultimate god is a fact that is reiterated umpteen times in our most sacred texts. Let me quote a few here. 

       Chandogya Upanishad (छान्दोग्योपनिषत्)  6:2:1 states "Ekamevadvitiyam" which means "He is only One without a second" and this is just a part of the Shlok, balance of which reads सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत.

Loosely translated, it reads "Before, O child, this was a mere state of being (sat), one only, without a second. Thereof verily others say: 'Before this was non-being, one alone, without a second; from that non-being proceeds the state of being.’

          Let me also quote from the First Veda, Rigveda, whose chapter 1:164 Shlok 46 states that “they call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan (एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति).”

         Having read all that has been mentioned in previous paragraphs, a very logical question can arise. The question is, if that is so, why do we have so many Devis and Devatas? To begin with, one must remember that word called GOD in the English language is very much the Trinity concept of Hinduism of Bramha (Generation of Life), Vishnu (the Operators or the one who Sustains the world) and Mahesh (The Destructor of the world) therefore, GOD in that context is also a combination of three sub-powers and not just one single entity.

        I very light-heartedly feel that outsourcing as a concept is as old as Hinduism and its philosophy. The Brahmana or Supreme Spirit has assigned (outsourced) the task of management of the universe, namely creating, sustaining, and ending life to his three main elements, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh. Since they are the direct representatives of the Supreme Spirit, in general, most Hindus worship the Supreme Spirit as either Brahma, Vishnu, or Mahesh, mostly the last two.

        Then why do we still have 33 types of Devi and Devitas? Let us take an example. Like the supreme being, the Parmatma or Brahmana, knowledge is also one, but does that mean we should, all our life, read or study just one book to know everything? A library represents Knowledge in miniature form. It holds supreme knowledge within its four walls; however, not everyone who enters the library does read a particular book to gain knowledge on various subjects.

        When in a library, a person chooses a section where books on a subject that he likes or wishes to read and picks those selected books of that subject which interest him or meet his aspirations. That means while knowledge may be one, it has multiple forms by way of myriad subjects, and a person studies that part of knowledge that interests him or her, as mentioned above.

        Does a student seeking knowledge read an all-pervasive book, irrespective of the field of their study? A science student reads books on his subject, and a commerce student reads books on accounting, etc. Both of them have the same aim: to acquire knowledge, not just any knowledge, but knowledge that they prefer, of the relevant field of interest.

       In Hinduism, the concept of worship is very similar to the above example of a Library. We worship that form of Paramatama or Brahmana which suits our needs in life. We as Hindus, using the choice Hinduism grants to us, may worship any form of the Parmatma, in any which manner we want, at any time of the day, and at any place we want. Furthermore, we Hindus have been provided absolute freedom in our religion to worship whoever we want, including any form of Parmatma that fulfils our spiritual needs. There are no compulsions in Hinduism.

        As a Hindu, if one is interested in bodily strength and physical power, that person prays to god using the form of Lord Hanuman. Someone who wants mental or inner power prays to the god using one of the Avatars of Shakti. If wisdom is what is desired, then the chosen form of god to pray is Maa Saraswati. Essentially, Hindus worship and pray to the same God, Brahmana or Parmatma, but the form of god that is to be worshipped varies, depending on an individual’s basic interest and objective, and of course, individual's choice. Remember, there are no compulsions in Hinduism.

         Hinduism provides us almost as many forms of "the God Almighty" (the only one, Ishwar or Parmatma) as there may be individual interests. That helps us to pray to God through the form that one visualizes and that meets his / her aspirations. After all, god for us is one of us. We communicate with him directly and not through any mediator. Tumhi ho Mata, Pita Tumhi ho, Tumhi ho Bamdhu, Sakha Tumhi Ho (You (the God) are my mother, my father, my brother and my friend, oh God you are one of us, within us)

       We Hindus don't need a mediator. For a Hindu, an Avatar is not a mediator. By way of an Avatar, God descends on this Earth for a specific purpose and returns back from this Earth when that purpose is accomplished. 

        Srimad Bhagwat Gita states this beautifully in Chapter 4 and I quote, “यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत। अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ॥Chapter 4 - Verse 7॥ परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् । धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे ॥Chapter 4- verse 8॥“. Its  meaning is, “Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, And there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I Myself come forth ; For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evildoers, For the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age.”

        The form that we choose to worship and through whom our prayers are channelized to the Paramatma helps us in the pursuit of our interests. It could be an Avtar or a Devi or Devata. We, as Hindus, too believe in one ultimate God, Brahmana or Parmatma but we have our unique way of reaching him through the path that we like to take. This understanding really empowers us to answer various questions of those who do not follow our faith or way of life.

        All this research made me feel very lucky to be what I am, a Hindu. I enjoy the freedom; my direct connection with my God is my personal bond with him/her. He is not someone looking over my shoulders and saying, “Now that he is committing this sin, it’s my chance to punish him.” After all, the job of giving punishment does not belong to my Bandhu and Sakha. 

       I do not hate other people worshipping in a different manner, or other ways of worship, as my religion has never claimed to be supreme or the only religion which alone can give you salvation. Hinduism, in fact, states that there are various ways of (worship) seeking the ultimate truth, the Almighty God, and all of them are equal. It is a different story that such magnanimity may not be shown by others following non-Hindu ways of worship.

         For me, a Hindu, God is not sitting in some exalted domain; my god is within me. I can question my god (or God’s whichever form I like) and ask him, Are you a Nirgun (formless, ever-present god) or Sagun (in a body or flesh, i.e, in some form like a devi or whatever) without any guilt. Questioning my beloved God in whichever form I like and seeking answers is very much part of the religion that I follow. That is because God for me is not beyond question. Why is it so? See below in the next paragraph.

         God, in my way of worship, is a mother or a father or a brother or a sakha (friend) i.e. he or she is what I want him or her to be. The god, in whichever of his avatars I choose, is one among us. He is our guide and friend who motivates us to do good all the time. 

         I am sure no one is looking over my shoulders to see, "ok, this guy is doing some sin, and now I have to punish him". In my (Hindu) way of worship, god is here to help me and not to punish me for my so-called sins, that job is left to my Karma, my running account of deeds that I did in past births, and I am doing in this birth and irrespective of which page (birth) in the ledger I am at, the account keeps running (as I have stated earlier) with the trial balance taken at end of each page (life).

         Karma (or Chitra Gupta as god’s accountant of Karma) maintains a running account of my good deeds and also not-so-good deeds and keeps paying me the principal along with the interest as per the balance sheet of all the good and not-so-good deeds in one or the other Janma or reincarnation (hence the rebirth). I, therefore, have hope that I have a series of Janmas (lives or Births) in years to come, and one day, when my good balance becomes supreme, I shall automatically attain Nirvana. Salvation to me, a Hindu, is not an external function. For me, it's an internal function, of my own doing, based on my own Karma, the good deeds that I do lead me to salvation.

         My religion tells me, as long as one devotes him/herself to what one's "Dharma" is, that person will achieve nirvana. Not only that, my religion bestows upon me various methods to follow for worshipping God Almighty. I can do Karma yoga if that suits me (the lord Krishna way, something that I practised all my life) or I can do Bhakti Yoga in line with a series of Saints and sages.

         I can pray to god in Nirgun form or Sagun form. I can pray at the time of my choosing or just remember him in my mind without any outward expression. As a Hindu, the form of Prayer and the form of god through whom I want to pray to is of my choosing and not handed down to me as the only choice. Place of Prayer, Time of prayer, style of prayer and even to pray or not to pray are of my own choosing.

         The concept of rebirth and the thought (and not the fear) of accounting for my own deeds helps me make a better choice of deeds that I do, like not troubling any form of life, helping people, etc.

        As a follower of Hinduism, I am told that every way of worship deserves equal respect from me. My religion also tells me that for self-defence, defence of women, children and the weak, irrespective of whichever profession I follow, I can pick up a weapon of my choice.

        That means I may be soft-spoken and conscious of others’ feelings, but if someone takes me for granted, or troubles me, my family, my neighbours or my society, I shall and I am duty bound to resist orally, physically and if need be, by using suitable weapons. I am also taught the basic rule of "No first use" but if the time comes, use it to the full impact using the right to second strike.

       Sant Tukaram once very famously said the following, hat we all MUST remember -

"Bhale Tari Deu Kasechi Langoti | Nathalache Matha Deu Kathi || MayBapahuni Bahu Mayavant | Karu Ghaatpat Shatruhuni ||?

       It means that if the person is good then we will offer him even the clothes that we are wearing. If the person is evil, we will hit his head with a stick. We are more caring than our parents, but to those with evil intentions, we can be more disastrous than his enemies.

         Finally, my religion has introduced me to this beautiful world and everything that is in it; it has told me by way of various stories of mythology, etc, the moral values, compassion towards everything that exists in this world, and to be of value to everyone who depends on me in any which way.

         I feel pleased and proud when I think of all those things that I get just for being a follower of Hinduism, and though it may not be in my hands to choose, but if given a choice, I would love to be born a Hindu all over again.

        Lokarpanmastu (dedicated to the people)

 

 

"Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah" - How to Quote Out of Context and Harm a Nation for Centuries.

The majority community in this Nation is peace loving one. It is so much peace loving that despite numerous attacks they never reacted collectively and rarely repulsed or fought with full force with the attacker. Instead, it just assimilated the attackers within it self. One way it is a great trait but it may also signify that since they did not or could not fight in a united manner,  they just assimilated attackers as a fait accompli.

But then the question that comes to the fore is, it may be good to live peacefully and assimilate the newcomers but why were the attacks not repulsed with full force in the first place? It is hard to believe that with so much of population the counter attacks or the opposition to external attackers (and no religiosity was really involved in external attacks. All attackers actually came for consolidating their power and to destroy known prosperity and loot the wealth of India, religion was merely a fig-leaf to justify their attack) was not what it should have been.

While I am propagating this thought, I am mindful that we had Prithviraj Chouhan, Maharana Pratap, Hemu, etc but most of their resistance crumbled some or the other time (like in the case Prithviraj Chouhan, may be on the 18th time after defeating the attacker 17 times).

Let me get down to the main argument of mine. First damage to majority psyche came from so calledजाति प्रथा (Caste system). According to the Caste system, only the people belonging to warrior clan were entitled to bear arms, protect society from all kind of aggression and were solely responsible for putting up resistance whatsoever.

The balance 3/4 of the people (3 castes out of 4 by Varna division) consisting of Priests, traders and workmen communities were told to concentrate on their profession. This 75 % population was de-franchised from arms and warfare. They never picked up arms, not even as citizen soldiers to join the warfare when the need for all to take up arms and stand up arose.

In a nation fed on basic teaching of Srimad Bhagwat Gita of कर्मण्ये वाधिकारस्ते म फलेषु कदाचना कर्मफलेह्तुर भुरमा ते संगोस्त्वकर्मानी॥ च २, ४७ (meaning - You have the right to work only but never to its fruits. Let not the fruits of action be your motive, nor let your attachment be to inaction), the 75 %  population were fed that your karma is practicing your profession, protecting yourself and your nation is not within your Karma. You just do your duty as Priest, Trader or Craftsman. It is for Warrior clan to fight because it is their Karma not yours. 

In turn loot, killing, humiliation and all other attended things became part of nation's Karma, because the nation was let down by 75 % of its population under a misplaced notion that bearing arms is not theirs but someone else's duty (karma). All this was happening when the basic teaching of Srimad Bhagvat gita had ordered that do not fear death as death is merely a change of body by your soul because the Atma (soul) can not be created nor can it be destroyed - नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः २.२३ (The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind).

The 75 % of the Indian population (by caste division not by absolute numbers) believed that taking up arm is not their Karma. Even bigger damage to the Indian psyche was done not so much so by Varna system but by numerous well-respected teachers and preacher of various sects who very confidently preached, to the masses, quoting out of context, what was prescribed only for the holy men (including the preachers), “Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah. This injunction was never meant for the common man but the common man was feed that this is your “Param Dharma” (the most sacred duty) overlooking the basic teaching of Srimad Bhagwat Geeta.

Here is the proof of my statement (least I am called Preposterous)  The full text of this shloka from Adi Parva is as under

अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः सर्वप्राणभृतां समृतः तस्मात पराणभृतः सर्वान न हिंस्याथ बराह्मणः कव चित

Meaning - Verily the highest virtue of man is sparing the life of others. Therefore a Brahmana should never take the life of any creature.

As seen from above, if the full text was used, it was very evident that this diktat was meant for only Brahmanas (Which may not be the full truth anyway). That would mean, at least in the context of  Shloka mentioned above, which was and is often half quoted or quoted out of context, the other three Varnas, namely Warriors, Traders and Artisans, that is three out of four Varnik divisions (and not Warriors alone) were free to bear arms to protect themselves and their nation, if only they were fed correct information, there would have been lot many additional warriors to fight the invaders.

Let me now examine if it was an injunction for all Brahmanas (is it appears to be, by verbal translation). Was it true for even Priest class? In Kurukshetra War both Dronachrya and krupacharya, brahmans and married, fought on the side of Kauravas and so was Ashwathma, Dronachrya's  son. In recent times, there were Brahmin Chieftains including The Peshwas in the Maratha Kingdom right from Shivaji's days who fought for Maratha Kingdom and spread the Maratha Kingdom far and wide.

Thus It actually applied to Sanyasis (and not to all Brahmans) who have to leave all the worldly things and be kind to all the living being. But if it was an injunction for all Sanyasis, how come Lord Parshuram picked up Arms despite being a sanyasi (under exceptional circumstances). The famous novel Anand Math by Bankam Chandra Chatterjee, which had the patriotic song “Vande – Matram” in it. has a central theme of Sanyasis taking up Arms to fight against a repressive regime. If taking up arms were forbidden for Sanyasis at all times, these examples would not have been there.

As can be seen, there was no absolute compulsion of "Ahimsa Param Dharma" on even Sanyasis, therefore, the Brahmans including Sanyasis were also free to pick up arms when needed. It must be mentioned that in the normal course, it was not expected for brahmans to be armed with anything more than knowledge but remember, that was valid only for normal times, not during exceptions when they could bear arms and use them.

And if bearing arms and using them for just cause was forbidden, why would lord Kirshna tell Arjuna in Kurukhstra war to treat the Mahabharat war as a war for just cause and against injustice hence fighting this war is his dharma, to be performed without attachment (as espoused in various chapters of Srimad Bhagwat Gita), despite knowing fully well that this war was to cause doom in Bharatvarsha. 

I hope I have been able to conclude that there is no religious or Varna restriction on bearing arms on any one belonging to any caste or sub-division in India. Particularly when the need to protect what is sacred to the nation, protecting self, family and society against any aggression, internal or external. Alas, if only this was clearly brought out in our society many centuries ago, our history would have been very different.

When it was the question of the survival of the Nation, Village, Communities or neighbours and own family, picking up Arms and fighting for the Just Cause was a duty for every Indian. It is so even today.

Alas, The population of this nation was quoted an important teaching only partially, out of context by some teachers and leaders who possibly themselves did not go deep in the meaning of the full sholaka (given below) or out of some vested interest-

अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः सर्वप्राणभृतां समृतः

तस्मात पराणभृतः सर्वान न हिंस्याथ बराह्मणः कव चित

And the worst is, this misquoting was done for many centuries by some teachers of various sects of those times,  thereby damaging Indian Psyche which paved way for many centuries of attacks by invaders and subjugation of the nation. The people of this nation did not pick up arms even when their families and their own survival was at stake, when their houses were being burnt and women being dishonoured. Why? Only because people thought that they are following the great (conveniently told only partially)dharma - अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः. What a shame.

I don't claim to know more than great teachers. In fact, I know very little compared to them. I am only trying to tell India and Indians, when it comes to आत्मरक्षा,परीवार  रक्षा or राष्टरक्षा, taking shelter behind Ahimsa is cowardice. All should come out and defend themselves, their families, their neighbours and their nation. For other times, Ahimsa can be followed. 

Time to put things in correct perspective. Even Rigveda commended in verse 1:39-2 “May your weapons be strong to drive away the attackers, may your arms be powerful enough to check the foes, let your army be glorious, not the evil-doer.”

Let us not pretend to be Ahimsak in the face of aggression to hide our weakness but rather do your Karma (duty), of Self Defence and defence of our Kith and Kin. Let the boggy of Ahimsa perpetuated as the "only truth" be forgotten and removed from our collective psyche.

Ahimsa towards those who are weak, defenceless and vulnerable is our duty even without being holy men or Sanyasis, but in all other circumstances, when danger to our life, life of our kith and kins and well being of our nation, “Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah” does not apply to anyone including Sanyasis. for picking up arms in the righteous cause of self-defence.

There never was a religious injunction on the common man irrespective of his Varna, Caste or sub-section but the whole nation was fed wrong information thereby damaging our Psyche and thereby allowing the nation to be subjugated and suffered. If only everyone had fought against invaders, things would have been very different

PS – 1. While many texts on the internet show these two phrases as a full Shlok, “Ahimsa Paramo Dharma, Dharma Himsa Tathavia Cha” I have not found any citation for it. 

2.    Also read : http://patriotsforum.org/अहिंसा-परमो-धर्मा-damage-caused-by-preachings-of-hindu-swamis/

3.    Response of a reader in : http://sellingthesecondamendment.com/hinduism-and-self-defense/