Religious Fallacies

Religious Fallacies

Exposes the contradictions and inaccuracies of commonly held beliefs

(The following is an attempt to see through the barrage of misleading propaganda designed to perpetuate blind faith among the peoples of all religions. Having been born in a Hindu family, this writer is more familiar with the Hindu mythology and therefore many if not the most of his criticism would offend the apologists of Hinduism. However, it is not his intention to prove the other religions better than Hinduism. This writer considers all religions to be more or less equally bad and ineffective in their professed goal of improving the behavior of their followers. (Please see Why I did not convert) He believes that God is above and beyond all religions including those we were born in. - Tatoodi}

The religious faith of most people is based on the stories contained in their religious books. These stories are far from convincing and raise more questions than they answer. Many do not make any sense at all. Others are mutually or inherently contradictory. Most of them paint a bad picture of God when examined a little closely. Here is an attempt to review the validity of some of them. The stories are not changed at all. They are only reinterpreted in a more realistic and believable way that anyone with common sense can do.

It is very easy to get awestruck by stories of miracles. People start worshiping those credited with the miracles most if not all of which are false claims not subject to verification.

We read these stories quite often in their sanitized versions. The religious leaders/editors/translators who present them to us do not want us to get the complete picture and leave out unpalatable aspects.

Almost always, people’s faith in God is indirect. They believe in somebody’s statement that a particular book is ‘Gis word’ and then accepting that book as ‘be it all and know it all’. Therefore, their faith is essentially in the person(s) who said that the particular book in question, be it Vedas, Gita, Bible, Koran or any other book, was the ‘God’s word’. I would rather believe in God directly without any intermediary.

We need to read all the lines, between the lines and beyond the lines of everything we read.

For believing in and praying God we do not need any of these unbelievable stories. Let us love and pray Gim for just being Ge.

Soul and Body

It has become customary to quote Geeta’s comparison of the relationship between our soul and body to that between our body and clothes, particularly in eulogies. The concept is that what matters is only the soul because it is indestructible and not the perishable body housing it.

The comparison is limited at its best and misleading at its worst. The one to one correspondence that defines a body and its soul does not exist between clothes and bodies. We can keep changing clothes every day but the soul cannot keep changing bodies in the same lifetime. We can wear each other’s clothes but the souls cannot exchange their bodies. We can remove one garment, wear another garment for some time, mend or wash the previous one and wear it again but the soul cannot reuse the body once it is discarded.

These significant differences indicate that our destructible bodies are as important and useful as our indestructible souls. If not, Krishna would not have picked up the chariot wheel to save the garment called Arjuna, or used his powers to save the garment-in-making (fetus) in Uttara’s womb. If garment-like bodies were not important, we should not celebrate the birthday of a garment called Krishna, which destroyed another garment called Kamsa.

A soul without a body is a ghost and we make all efforts to relieve the soul to either have salvation or more likely another body. In reality, our bodies are as useful and important as our souls, not more but not less either.

Genocide:

The worst genocide, by the number of victims killed, was the Holocaust. But it was not the first. The first genocide, known to this writer, is recorded in the Bible. (Genesis 34:1-30) It was committed by two of the sons of Jacob (renamed Israel; Genesis 32:28). Their sister Dinah's lover Shechem, accompanied by his father, requested permission to marry her. Jacob's sons "deceitfully" (Genesis 34:13) said that they would agree to the marriage if all males of Schechem's city get circumscribed. The groom's father agreed. The males got circumscribed. While they were sore, her brothers, Simon and Levi, "slew all the males." (Genesis 34:25).

Geeta’s Preachings:

Geeta advises us to treat happiness and misery, gain and loss as well as victory and defeat equally with each other (2:38). This is impossible not only for humans but was also for Krishna himself. He could not accept the possible defeat of Pandavas and therefore intervened in the war seven times on the following occasions.

· He took up a chariot wheel (because he had vowed not to use any weapons) to save the life of the ‘garment’ called Arjun,

· He persuaded Arjun to violate the principles of just war (dharmayuddha) and attack Karna while the latter was trying to pull out the wheel of his chariot,

· He made Yudhishthir tell a half-truth for the purpose of killing Drona,

· He talked Arjun out of abandoning the war after Abhimanyu was killed,

· He deprived Karna of his protective kundal and kavach by surreptitiously posing as a Brahmin,

· He signaled Bhima to hit Duryodhana on the latter’s genital in clear violation of the rules of gadayuddha, and

· He used his ‘divine’ powers to prevent Ashvatthama’s brahmastra from killing Uttara’s fetus.

Clearly, victory and defeat were not equally acceptable to Krishna. How can they be to us?

We are asked to eliminate the six enemies namely kaama (sex, pursuit of happiness), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), moha (attachment), mada (boastfulness) and matsara (jealousy) from our lives. This sounds good and appears to be a high ideal. Is it really possible to do so? Certainly not. Should a person unable to achieve complete victory over these six instincts feel inferior or guilty? Definitely not. These instincts are also useful parts of our lives. What is needed is to keep them within limits and channelize them for the benefit of the individual as well as the society. As long as these so called ‘vices’ do not hurt one self or others they also serve some useful purposes in our lives. The trick is in knowing the appropriate limits beyond which they should be curbed. These limits are well above zero. For example it would be quite proper to get angry if a rape is being committed in one's presence. Also, we may mourn the death of a young person more severely for a longer duration than that of an older person. But not grieving any death at all is neither possible nor desirable.

Geeta preaches us to perform our duties without expecting rewards. This sounds very good while preaching others but is simply impossible to practice oneself. Human nature being what it is, no one would perform any work unless some desired outcome is likely to materialize. Would anyone read Geeta if it is not likely to provide inner peace to the reader? Even Krishna does not take birth if he is unlikely to destroy the evil people.

The failure of Geeta to relieve one of hisr attachment (asakti) is glaringly proven by the action of Arjun in laying down his weapons upon Abhimanyu’s death. If Krishna could not teach his lessons well to his avowed disciple, how can he teach them to others? Why then do we call him Jagadguru (the world’s teacher)? If Brahma is real (satyam) and Jagat is unreal (mithya), Jagadguru would also be Mithyaguru.

Krishna said, “Give up all dharmas and surrender to me only; I’ll relieve you of all sins.” (18:66) And yet Arjun could not enter the heaven whereas Yudhishthir, a liar and wife-bettor, and his dog, could. Does not this mean that Krishna did not keep his word? Through out Geeta, he kept telling Arjun that the latter was his very dear friend and devotee. Then why did he not keep his promise?

Jesus’ Claims:

Jesus claimed that he was the only son of God. He also challenged the temple priests to destroy it and he would rebuild it within three days. The word ‘temple’ is then reinterpreted to mean his body and his ‘resurrection’ is passed on as the rebuilding of the temple. The story of ‘resurrection’ raises the following questions:

1. How long did he live after resurrection?

2. Where did he go?

3. What did he do?

4. What miracles did he perform?

5. What did he teach?

6. Did he ever face his opponents? Where? When? How? With what results? Did he prove that he did rebuild the ‘temple’?

7. When and where did he die?

8. Where was he buried?

9. What did his disciples do?

It is said that Jesus did not die the second time around but simply ‘ascended’ to heaven in sight of his followers. This raises a few more questions:

1. If he could ‘ascend’ to heaven in sight of disciples, why could not he do so in sight of his detractors?

2. Why could not he ‘descend’ from heaven instead of being ‘begotten’ by mother Mary?

Please do not get me wrong. Jesus was an extremely great person even if some one can prove that he was not ‘virgin born’, could not walk on water, was not resurrected, etc. He was so kind that he could not resist helping the miserable and also so bold that he did not hesitate to challenge the hypocritical priests. Such a person could not have passed his 'new' life passively. He would certainly have gone public at least to prove that God the savior is more powerful than the killers. His miracles are less important compared to his teachings. He might have been the only son of God but only in his time and place. However, God did and will continue to exercise Gis right to keep sending many more sons and daughters, who do not make tall claims, because we humans are so incorrigible.

Golden Lid

Upanishads say that the truth is covered with a golden lid (patra i.e. vessel) that needs to be removed so that its seeker can see it. This may not be entirely incorrect but not totally applicable either. It is true in the sense that the lid appears to be valuable being golden and therefore one is apt to accept it as the truth itself. But then, who is going to remove the lid, the seeker or some other entity? What prevents such removal? If some people did see the truth in the past, as claimed in the scriptures, who put the lid back over the truth and why? If it is covered, then how can some people see it but most others cannot?

In reality, truth is always out there in the open. If one is not able to see it, there is something wrong with hisr (his or her) sight and not with the truth or its surroundings.

A better analogy would be that of eyeglasses (spectacles, invented long after the Upanishads). They pertain to individuals who can and must adjust and clean them properly. If the glasses are right, they enable clear vision otherwise they blur it. Most of us have our vision blurred by glasses with layers over them. These layers come in several forms, ignorance, selfishness, greed, blind faith and most commonly mamatva i.e. our bias for what we consider our own like religion, culture, country, people etc. The seeker of truth must remove these layers.

Vasishtha

The sage Vasishtha is said to have been born in a water pot (Vasu) in which fell the semen of the two gods (angels) Agni and Varuna when they had an involuntary ejaculation upon seeing Rambha while attending a religious function (yajna) in the heaven. Whereas this type of birth does not enhance the greatness of the sage, it does raise questions. Why was Rambha provocative at a religious ceremony? Why could not Agni and Varuna control themselves? Even if they had an involuntary ejaculation, how could the semen fall to the ground on the earth unless they were naked? Why were they naked? Even if the semen did reach the ground, how could a baby be borne in the absence of a female organ? Most probably, the baby was abandoned by a mother afraid of the social stigma attached to pregnancy and delivery out of wedlock. But the people who wanted to praise Vasishtha would not want that stigma passed on to him. Therefore, they concocted such an implausible story.

God and Individuals

The relationship between God and individuals is compared with that between (1) a father and his child, (2) a husband and his wife or (3) a master and his servant. We are also told that the goal of our lives should be to seek salvation freeing the soul from being born again. This does not make sense. If a child or a wife or a servant loves the father, husband or master, hse (he or she) must be willing to work for the latter as many times as asked to, rather than quit working for the loved one. Therefore, the goal of an individual soul must not be salvation (moksha) but as many rebirths (if there are any) as possible in the service of the God hse loves. Once we decide not to seek salvation, most of the 'spiritual' literature becomes needless.

Mother Mary’s virginity

Christians believe that Jesus’ mother Mary was a virgin even though she had a husband named Joseph (Matthew 1:16). But Jesus is also considered to be a ‘seed’ of David not through Mary but through Joseph (Matthew 1: 1 through 15). “When his mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18).

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3)

These are mutually contradictory versions in the New Testament. Only one of them can be true.

Jagatguru Shankaracharya:

Adi Shankaracharya, the first in the tradition, said, “Brahmam Satayam Jaganmithya” meaning “Brahma (the divine being) is real, the world is unreal.” If so, he himself, being a part of the world, was also an illusion. Why then did he bother to set up four mathas (monasteries) and temples in the four corners of India? Would not they also be illusions? The reason he called the world an illusion was that it keeps changing unlike the divine one. Therefore, the correct dictum should be “Brahmam nityam (permananet), jagad anyatha (not like that).”

We are fond of calling some people 'jagadguru'. What exactly is involved?

1. Americans use the word 'world' to include only Canada ignoring the rest of the countries as in 'World' series base ball and 'world' news on TV channels. Similarly, we use the word 'jagat' only to include Hindus ignoring the several times larger population of non-Hindus.

2. Shankracharya said "Brahmam satyam jaganmithya". So was he not a 'Mithyaguru'? (Just replace the word jagat with 'mithya'). And if the world was just an illusion why did he labor so much to establish the four mathas in the four directions of India?

3. Krishna was a failed 'vamshguru' (family-teacher) who could not teach his own children and grandchildren the proper behavior. They killed themselves by infighting 'yadavasthali'. How can such a person be called a 'jagatguru'?

'Jagatguru' is therefore a ridiculous adjective for undeserving persons.

Promise to Abraham

Almost all the Jews and some Christians seem to believe that God had promised the land today known as ‘Israel’ to Abraham. What did Abraham do to deserve such a promise? Nothing at all.

He was a coward and a liar. (Genesis 12: 11 through 16) He was afraid that the Pharaoh would kill him for his very beautiful wife Sarai. He therefore presented her as his sister.

Vaishnava Jana

The famous bhajan says “paradhana nava zale haath re” meaning “a true devotee of God does not even touch other peoples’ wealth.” That means hse (he or she) is supposed to sustain himrself (him or her self) with ‘svadhan’ meaning one’s own wealth.

What exactly is ‘svadhan’? Obviously, it is the money or other commodity received by the person as a result of some work done for others or some business activity. Any thing else would be ‘paradhana’.

Now consider the author of the bhajan itself. Narsimha Mehta never did anything to earn a living for himself and his wife and two children. All his life he was a parasite on his elder brother. Occasionally he took money from others and squandered it as in the case of the ‘Hundi’. It does not matter that he used the money for a ‘good’ cause. It was not his money. He should have made arrangements to send it over to the person who was supposed to honor that ‘hundi’. Instead of doing so, he troubled God with a request to honor the ‘hundi’. On many other occasions like his childrens’ weddings etc. he kept on troubling Gim. How can such a person be called a devotee of God? What did he do to deserve Shiva’s granting him a wish? Was it not rash on the part of Shiva to do so?

This is the misfortune of Hinduism. There are countless people lazy enough to do nothing but smart enough to pretend to be devotees of God and lead easy lives of parasites on the society. These people are then honored as if they are saints or gurus.

Dattatreya

The story of the birth of Dattatreya goes something like this. Anasuya, the wife of the sage Atri was extremely beautiful. The fame of her beauty reached the trinity Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh. They decided to see her themselves and showed up at her door disguised as Brahmins seeking bhiksha. When Anasuya brought the food for them they said that they would accept it only if she removed all her clothes. She recognized them and with her saintly powers, turned them into infants before removing her clothes and feeding them. Pleased with this, the trio granted her a wish. She asked them to be born to her as her child. They did. The child was Dattatreya who had the great qualities of all the three.

This story sounds great when viewed from Dattatreya’s perspective. But what about the trinity? How could they have stooped so low as to want her to unclothe herself? What does it say about their character?

Stories like this are made up by people who want to establish or enhance the greatness of their favored hero without considering their implications on the other

parties involved in the story. We must take them with not grains but fistfuls of salt.

Prayer

What is prayer if not one’s intense personal feeling for God? The prayer should be heartfelt and not just a ritual. It is said that Ge (Paramatma) is the husband and the individual soul (Jivatma) is the wife so that the prayer is a communication from a wife to the husband. Being so, how can it be scheduled, organized or regulated? Why then do we prescribe the timings, places and wordings of people’s prayer, particularly those of the children, depriving them of the spontaneity so essential for it to be real?

One can pray only individually and silently. Even two people cannot pray together without being distracted or watching what the other is doing or trying to impress the other. I have been at some prayers at the completion of which I was either criticized for not saying out the shlokas loud (when I was actually reciting them in mind) or commended for doing so (when I was actually thinking about something else). Basically joint and group prayers are for showing off one’s religiousness.

There is a difference between ‘loving’ and ‘making love’. Similarly, there is a vast difference between ‘praying’ and ‘making prayer’. The latter is what happens in the places of worship.

What we do between two sessions of ‘prayer’ is much more important than the two events of ‘prayers’ because, more often than not, we violate many if not the most of the principles we are supposed to abide by.

Giridhari

Krishna is said to have lifted up the Govardhan mountain on his one little finger and asked his followers to take shelter under it for protection from the deluge let loose by Indra. Now, let us use our God-given common sense for a while. Not using it would be an insult to Gim.

When we are afraid of drowning, we run to higher grounds not to lower ones. In this particular case, all the rain falling on the mountain would collect under it and cause much deeper flooding and more unsafe condition. Krishna’s devotees made up this story to show that he was very strong. But let us not presume that he was stupid. If it was the matter of showing his supernatural powers, he could have ordered Indra to stop the deluge. After all, he called himself Ge, did not he?

One Gujarati columnist has claimed that Shrikrishna could lift a whole mountain on his last finger because he knew how to nullify gravity. If so, instead of raising the mountain, he could have make the rain water flow up into the sky. Or, better still, bing almighty all he had to do was order Indra to stop the deluge.

Karna

Karna was the person in Mahabharata who was subjected to the most occasions of grave injustice.

Kunti, while still unmarried, got curious and gave birth to a son to Sooryadev. It is claimed that there was no physical intercourse between the two and the conception was through a mantra only. Although believable only by the gullible, let us accept this claim. Kunti, afraid of the stigma of childbirth out of wedlock, abandoned her son. A coachman and his wife found the baby, named him Karna and raised him as their own son. Karna therefore came to be known as a ‘sootputra’ and was insulted as such several times in his life.

Was it not very improper for Sooryadev to have made an unmarried girl pregnant even through mantra recitation? Having done so, was it proper for him to abandon his son? He never fulfilled his obligation of protecting and helping his son. He did not have the moral courage to declare that he was the father of Karna.

Karna also had the misfortune of having met with two very narrow-minded persons named Parshuram and Krishna. In spite of tall claims of being incarnations of ‘omniscient’ Vishnu, both of them failed to ‘know’ that Karna was not a ‘sootputra’ but ‘sooryaputra’. Not only that but they also treated him with severe injustice.

Parshuram cursed him to make him forget the ‘vidya’ he taught Karna (probably because he knew that it would not work any way). This rejection and insult by Parshuram drove Karna to Duryodhana who did realize and reward his talents as a warrior. Karna may be faulted for keeping company with bad people, but the question is, “What did the ‘good’ people give him except neglect, insult and deceit?”

Krishna did not let him participate in the ‘war games’ of the princes as well as in the ‘matsyavedha’. He later cheated him by surreptitiously posing as a Brahmin and demanding his ‘kundal’s and ‘kavach’ that would have protected him in the war. Then again Krishna made Arjun kill him while he was engrossed in unsticking his chariot’s wheel in violation of the rules of ‘dharmayuddhha’.

It is shameful that the people who perpetrated such grave injustices are worshipped as if they were God.

Incarnations

We Hindus like to believe in the ‘Incarnation Theory’ according to which Vishnu took different forms such as a fish etc. for the purpose of saving the earth, protecting the good people and destroying the evil. I call it a theory because that is what it is, just a theory.

If the theory were correct, then God must be like a lazy worker who lets his work pile up and then works overtime to clear up the backlog. Ge simply cannot function like that. Gis has to be and is a continuous and active presence doing what Ge likes to do.

Some of the incarnations of Vishnu had become necessary because Shiva granted some wish to some demon (danava) like Hiranyakashipu for no good reason and without evaluating the consequences, as was his bad habit. Particularly, the Narsimha incarnation was an example of Shiva’s stupidity and Vishnu’s lawyerly cleverness.

Some incarnations, like the Narsimha, were for short durations, whereas some others like Parshuram (the sixth incarnation) lasted very long. Parshuram lasted before as well as after the Rama avatar. If Vishnu was already on the earth as Parshuram, why could not Parshuram kill Ravana? Why did these concurrent incarnations exist simultaneously?

Parshuram is said to have made the earth ‘nakshatri’ (kshatriyaless) 21 times. If one does it once, what is left to be done second time around? What it means is that he made 21 attempts but failed miserably every time. Had he succeeded, Krishna (the eighth incarnation) could not have said, “Chaturvarnyam maya shrushtam” (“The system of four castes was made by me”). Krishna would have been constrained to say “Traivarnyam maya shrushtam” (“The system of three castes was made by me.”) Thus, the two incarnations were working at mutually opposite purposes.

Parshuram also lasted until Karna in times of Krishna and Arjuna. So, why could not Parshuram kill Kamsa?

When Rama broke the Shivdhanush, Parshuram got very angry with him and went to punish him. He is one of the ‘seven immortals’. If so, why did he not use the ‘vidya’ that he had kept from Karna and everybody else to fight Mohammad Gaznavi when he attacked the Somnath temple?

There is some disagreement about the ninth incarnation. Some people say it was Balaram, Krishna’s half brother, whereas many say that it was Buddha. If it was Balaram, what was the purpose of that incarnation? If it was Buddha, why do Hindu religious leaders feel happy that Adi Shankaracharya wiped out Buddhism from India?

Basically, the stories of the incarnations are full of statements that do not make sense. The theory of incarnations does not do any good to the principles of Hinduism.

Ahalya, Sita and Rama

Ahalya was the wife of the ‘sage’ Gautama. She was extremely beautiful. Indra heard of her beauty. One morning, when Gautama had gone to the river for his morning worship, Indra, disguised as Gautama, came to Ahalya and asked to have sex with her. She granted the request. On return from the river, Gautama found out the fact. He could not punish Indra, but cursed Ahalya to turn into a stone (shalya). She is said to have lain there as a rock until Rama’s toe touched her whereupon she came back to human form. In this case Ahalya was subjected to deceit. But at least she did have sex with someone other than her husband even if unknowingly. And Rama’s touch absolved her of that mistake.

(There seems to be a general misunderstanding here. The word ‘shalya’ also means a ‘stone woman’ who does not have any sexual instinct. What most probably happened was that Gautama gave some medication to Ahalya to deprive her of her sexual desire that Rama restored later. But this is beside the point.)

On the other hand, Sita was abducted by Ravana. During the abduction itself, she dropped her ornaments along the way to enable Rama to find her. This proves that she was kidnapped but did not elope with Ravana. During her captivity neither did she agree to have sex with Ravana nor did he rape her. And yet, upon liberation, she was subjected to the most inhuman and unjust process of ‘agnipareeksha’ by Rama instituted solely for her. (“This tradition will start and end with you,” said Rama meaning he had singled out Sita for grave injustice.) She was a potential victim of a crime against her but not a perpetrator of any crime or sin but would have been burnt to death had the crime been committed. What type of jurisprudence would permit asking one to prove that no crime was committed against himr (him or her)?

Even after passing the test, Rama exiled Sita, in a very deceitful way without telling her what he was doing, under the false pretext of popular demand. He never ever inquired as to what happened to her or her baby, did not even know that she had twins. He punished not only Sita but also her children for no reason. In short, Rama exhibited absolute lack of sense of justice and responsibility.

If Ahalya could be relieved of her curse by Rama’s toe, why could not Sita, whom Rama touched more intensely and extensively, be saved from the unjust punishment and suffering? Was it because she was his wife and husbands had a right to mistreat their wives? Our religious leaders try to justify this as a necessity to set an example on the people. Are our people so immature (naadaan) that they need punishing the innocent to refrain from bad behavior? If stones could be made to float just by writing ‘Rama’ on them, how come Sita, who had that name written in her heart, had to drown through Rama’s unjust behavior?

The Hindu wedding ceremony requires the groom to promise the bride to protect her throughout her life. Rama must have promised Sita to protect her. Why did not he keep that promise?

If the people objected to Rama receiving Sita back in his home, Rama could have given his paduka to Bharat to rule the kingdom just as was done during the 14 years of exile. Rama could have stayed with Sita in a jungle close by to provide guidance and support to Bharat. But even Vishnu's avatar did not have such simple common sense as such a lowly guy like me. What a pity!

Once he accidentally met with his sons, and through them, Sita, Rama asked Sita to return to Ayodhya. People believe that the land (‘mother earth’) opened up at her request and absorbed her. This again is the literal interpretation of the word ‘bhoogarbh-pravesh’. Literally, it means getting buried in the earth but actually it means going incognito by changing one’s identity and keeping a low profile. Thus, Sita actually rejected Rama to preserve her self-respect, refused to return to Ayodhya and mingled into the public like an ordinary person. So this was ‘Rama-tyaga’ by Sita in response to ‘Sita-tyaga’ by Rama. This was necessary because had she gone back to Ayodhya, there might have been another accusation of infidelity and humiliation. After all she did stay away from her husband for all those years when the boys were growing up.

If the above is not enough to convince you that Ram-worship the worst disgrace of Hinduism, consider the following.

According to Dasharath’s promise to Kaikeyi, Bharat was supposed to get the kingdom and Ram was to go to the forest for 14 years. Neither Bharat had the right to reject the kingdom, nor Ram the right to agree with him. Dashrath’s promise to Kaikeyi was not an offer that could be accepted or rejected but an order that must have been obeyed. But Bharat threatened to give up his life whereupon, Ram gave his ‘paduka’ to be placed on the throne indirectly making sure that he would get the kingdom on return from the jungle.

रघुकूल रीति राम ठुकराई

वचन पिताका तोडके

भाईकी जान बचाई

Raghukul reeti Rama thukarai,

Vachan pitaka todake

Bhaiki jaan bachaai.

Ram forgot what his great grandfather Dileep had said

किमप्यहिंस्यस्त्वचेन्म्तोSहम् यशःशरीरे भव मे दयालुः |

एकान्तविध्वंसिषु मद्विधानाम् पिण्डेष्वनास्था खलु भौतिकेषू ||

“Kimapyahimsyastava chenmatoaham Yasha: shareere bhava me dayalu:

Ekantavidhvansishu madvidhanam Pindeshvanastha khalu bhautikeshu.

If, somehow, you consider me to be some one not to be killed, please favor my prestige. People like me do not have attachment for the body that has to die once.”

The proper thing to do was to place Dasharath’s paduka or statue on the throne. But Ram did not have any sense of propriety. By giving his footwear for placing on Ayodhya’s throne, he implicitly accepted it in violation of his stepmother’s demands granted by his father. Some people say he gave his kingdom to Bharat, but he could not have ‘given’ it because he had no right to give something that did not belong to him and the kingdom certainly did not belong to him.

During the reign of Rama, an old Brahmin brought his son’s dead body with a complaint. The ‘sage’ advisors of Rama blamed the untimely death of the young Brahmin on the unauthorized ‘tapasya’ of Shambuka a ‘shudra’ king as if the law of ‘karma’ had been suspended. (How could the ‘sin’ of an unrelated person kill the young man?) Rama thoughtlessly killed Shambuka by sending a ‘laxyavedhi’ arrow (ICBM?). This was highly unjust of Rama to kill someone without even giving that person a chance to defend himself. Again, if he could kill from such a great distance what was the need to chase the golden deer when Sita wanted it killed?

There can be no doubt that Ramaworship is the worst disgrace (kalank) of Hinduism because it perpetuates and glorifies injustice. As long as we worship unjust people, the society will keep suffering from injustices.

Gurupuja

We Hindus consider guru to be equal to and even superior to the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. “Gurursakshatparabrahma”!

Can this be true? The essential qualification of a truly spiritual person is that he should be ‘Nirmamo nirahankarh’ i.e. he should be free from attachment and boastfulness.

Now, a person like this would never claim to be guru and would never make any disciples. On the other hand the worst type of vain glory (mithayabhiman) is to consider oneself a spiritual accomplisher (siddha). One cannot take disciples unless hse (he or she) is boastful about hisr (his or her) spiritual superiority. But the moment hse takes disciples. Hse disqualifies himr (him or her) as a guru. So, on closer examination, one finds that a true guru (satguru) is a non-existent imagination.

In reality, all ‘guru’s are found to have special attachment to themselves and also one or more particular disciples. They are also found to be very proud of their spirituality. None of them passed (or passes) the test.

Sanskrit

We Hindus are very fond of forcing our children to memorize Sanskrit shlokas and reciting them like parrots without knowing their proper pronunciation let alone their meaning and then feeling the vainglory (mithya-abhiman) of saving ‘our culture’. Even many adults say the shlokas incorrectly for example ‘anya’ instead of ‘anna’ and so on.

This is just a craze. It does not help preserve our culture in any way. Our ancestors spoke, and thought that the gods spoke, Sanskrit because that was the language of the people at that time and the better languages had not developed.

Sanskrit is an excellent language for poetry. But for prose it is a very confusing one. There is no standard structure for a Sanskrit sentence. One can place the subject, object, verb, adjectives, adverbs etc. in any sequence that comes to mind. This can lead to many different interpretations of the same sentence.

Some people claim that Sanskrit is an excellent language for computer programming. That is precisely the point. Languages suitable for computer programming are unsuitable for our daily interpersonal communications.

Unlike most modern languages which have singular and plural forms of nouns and verbs, Sanskrit has an additional set of forms for two subjects or objects. This adds to unnecessary complication.

The verbs too have several different forms. There are ten ‘gana’s and two ‘pada’s of forms causing 20 different ways of changing a root verb to make it fit the number of subjects and the tense involved. There are additional tenses like the continuous present, continuous past, continuous future and the ‘vidhyarth’. Not only that, the same root verb may use forms suitable for several different categories. This makes it extremely difficult to learn and understand Sanskrit. The language died because it was not useful for daily use.

Sticking to a dead language just because our ancestors spoke it is akin to ‘ghostocracy’ a reign of ghosts.

Harijan

Gandhiji coined the word ‘Harijan’ in response to the suffering and injustice inflicted on the people considered untouchable in his days.

There was a despicable practice of considering all Brahmins worthy of respect and privileges for having been born in a Brahmin family and all Shudras deserving contempt and exploitation just for having been born in a Shudra family. Vices of individual Brahmins did not disqualify them nor did the virtues of individual shudras benefit them.

This of course was a highly objectionable way of treating people. But what Gandhiji did was to replace one bad thing with another equally bad thing in which any person would be considered a ‘person of God’ just for having been born in an untouchable shudra family. The coining of the word ‘Harijan’ has not helped the downtrodden belying the expectations. It may actually have hurt them.

A better term would have been ‘Svajana’ or 'Parijana'. Hinduism is probably the only religion that has mistreated its own followers by discriminating against and exploiting them because the elite that wrote the rules considered them to be a third party. Therefore it was and still is essential to make every Hindu realize that the untouchables of the past as well as present and all shudras are our own people deserving to be treated equally well as the other components of the society. As long as there is the feeling of ‘us’ against ‘them’ all the well-meaning laws enacted in the favor of the ‘Harijans’ are not going to be as effective as they should be.

The system of reservation of college seats and employment positions is well intended and necessary provided it is implemented effectively. So far it has created an intermediate class that keeps using up all the benefits afforded by the system preventing them from reaching the really downtrodden. To prevent this the benefits should be limited to one generation only. The children of those who had benefited from the reservation quotas must not be eligible to these benefits.

We need to realize that counter-violence is not non-violence, counter-lie is not truth, and counter-injustice is not justice.

Ekalavya

Ekalavya was an adivasi (native forest-dweller) genius. He taught himself archery and became as good as if not better than Arjuna. His talents were discovered by Dronaguru when Ekalavya muzzled up the mouth of a barking dog with his arrows without hurting the dog. When Drona asked him as to who taught him such excellent skills, he showed the statue of Drona that he had made and was worshipping as a guru. Drona took advantage of this and asked him to cut off and give his right hand thumb as ‘guru dakshina’ to Drona. Ekalavya readily complied.

The meanness of Drona was intended to eliminate Arjuna’s competitor. Many Hindus try to justify this injustice as a way to prevent any possible misuse by Ekalavya of his skills. This is hogwash similar to the ‘Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’. People in power use such excuses to keep the downtrodden so forever.

Drona gave the Brahmastra vidya to his own son Ashvatthama who later misused it to try to kill Uttara’s fetus disproving the contention that Brahmins and Kshatriyas would not misuse their skills. Drona’s demand was nothing but racist and cannot be forgiven by any standard.

Vishvamitra

We Hindus are very fond of praising the rishis and munis as if they were perfect human beings free from any fault.

One of them is Vishvamitra. A well-known religious preacher went to the extent of saying that Vishvamitra never had an affair with Menaka. If he were right, Shakuntala could not have been born, there would have been no Bharat and India could not have been named ‘Bhaarat’ after this Bharat.

The same preacher, while praising Vasishtha, stated that Vishvamitra had killed Vasishtha’s one hundred sons and had conspired with a young girl to lure Vasishtha into river water and pushed him with the intent to kill him. To say that such a murderer can do these things, but could not he have had an affair with Menaka can be the result only of blind faith in the so called ‘sages’.

Vishvamitra was also guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to king Harishchandra and his family. It was nice of the latter to stand by his word but the ‘sage’ acted more like a villain than a sage.

Science in Hinduism

We Hindus are very fond of claiming, as soon as a major scientific breakthrough is achieved in the West, that a similar feat was achieved in ancient India.

There are people who boast that the first transplant of a human organ was done by Shiva by attaching an elephant’s head on his son’s neck. This is not some thing to be proud of but to be really ashamed of because it was Shiva’s stupidity that made it necessary. His rash thoughtless action of not waiting a while for his wife to finish bathing and opening her door but cutting off a child’s head in anger can be condoned only by his mindless devotees. Please see Ganesh for a pictorial explanation of the concept of Ganesh.

Some people also claim that the first cloning in history was done by Gandhari thereby belittling the scientific advancement. The question they would not like to answer is, “Whom did she clone? Why could not she clone a better person and produce a few good children rather than a hundred of such bad ones as the Kauravas?” They also praise her for blindfolding her eyes in sympathy for her blind husband. In reality, instead of serving her husband, she made others serve her which is not some thing praise worthy.

Another item of vainglory is the centuries old pillar of ‘stainless’ steel near Delhi. We like to claim that our ancestors had advanced metallurgical skills. We did have it, but was lost. Either the king who paid for the pillar killed the artist to prevent him from erecting another one elsewhere or the artist was himself so narrow-minded that he did not pass on his knowledge to anyone else.

The ‘Pushpak’ viman (aircraft) which is supposed to have carried Rama from Lanka to Ayodhya is also cited as a proof of our ancestors’ technological proficiency without regard to the fact that they failed to maintain it and duplicate it.

Time and again, Hindu scholars did accomplish some great successes but failed to pass on their knowledge to others so that there was no progressive improvement or even preservation of the knowledge.

Shravan

The story of Shravan is a very familiar one. He was an ideal son who complied with the desire of his blind parents to go on pilgrimage by carrying them from town to town in two large baskets suspended from a long bamboo pole placed on his shoulder. He was eventually killed by King Dasharatha’s sound-tracking arrow who shot at him mistaking the sound his water pot made for that of an animal drinking water. The blind parents cursed Dasharatha so that he later died of the grief of his son Rama leaving him for the forest in accordance with the wishes of his stepmother.

The story sounds good. Shravan did what an ideal son was supposed to do. But what about the parents? Being blind, they should not have married. Even if they had become blind after wedding and Shravan’s birth, they should not have asked Shravan to take them to the pilgrimage. They were being too selfish and inconsiderate. Therefore, in a way, that deserved what befell them and no sympathy from us. This was a case of extreme misuse of the dictum, “Matru devo bhava, pitru devo bhava.”

Adam and Eve

The most common story among many religions is that of Adam and Eve. It is said that God, the intelligent designer, created Adam. Then from his rib, Ge created Eve. Ge forbade Adam from eating the ‘fruit of knowledge’ whatever it means. But they did. And then they ‘committed sin’ by eating the fruit (and having sex.) They had children. And then the mankind multiplied.

Now, think for a while. The fact that Eve got pregnant and gave birth to children proves that Ge did provide Adam and Eve with reproductive systems. This means Ge did want them to procreate. Therefore, Ge would not have wanted them to be celibates. Why then would Ge forbid eating of the fruit? So that they would not cover themselves with the fig leaf? Ge probably did so because Ge knew the human nature that we are attracted to do the forbidden acts. This was Gis way to make sure that they would have sex. Spousal sex is therefore the best divine gift to mankind. To abhor it and call it a ‘sin’ is the worst insult of God.

If, for the sake of argument, it were assumed that Ge did not want Adam and Eve to have children, it means that Ge did not want mankind to come into existence. Was Ge so helpless that Ge could not prevent it? If so, why would Ge love mankind at all later on?

The only way a single couple like Adam and Eve could have had grandchildren would be through incest. This would certainly be not to Gis liking. Therefore, Ge, being intelligent, must have had enough foresight to create at least two pairs of spouses if not more. The whole story of Adam and Eve is therefore an unGodly imagination of people who could not think at all. Please see ungodlygenesis for more on this.

Varnashram Vyavastha

The ancient Hindu society was based on the system of four classes (varna) and four stages (ashrama).

Let us consider the implications of these two types of divisions.

The class system or the caste system as is commonly known might originally have been flexible. It is said that “Janamana jaaayate shudrah sanskaaraatdvija uchyate” a person is born as a shudra, the lowest caste, but becomes a Brahmin through sanskaara. The generally understood meaning of the word ‘sanskaara’ is character. The impression this creates that only people with high character would qualify to be called Brahmins. Unfortunately, the vested interests changed the meaning to ‘rituals’ and specified sixteen rituals to be performed. It was very easy for sons of Brahmins to undergo those rituals but almost impossible for the Shudras thereby replacing the ‘caste by virtue’ system with ‘caste by birth’ system.

I have heard some Brahmins claim that they are the intelligent ones among all. I am willing to assume that all those born in Brahmin families are intelligent. But what about the small percentage of non-Brahmins who were and are intelligent? Even if only five percent of them who constitute about 95 percent of the population were intelligent, it would make almost as large a number of intelligent people as the Brahmins. Not utilizing their potential was a colossal waste that profoundly hurt the Hindu society.

Similarly, if only about ten percent Kshatriyas were supposed to protect the people, that deprived the Hindus of a very large number of able bodied persons who could and should have contributed to the defense of India.

The stage system was also similarly wasteful. Only those between ages 25 to 50 were the working ones. Even if about 50 percent seniors died between ages 50 and 75, and another 50 percent died between 75 and 100 years, that left a very large burden of children and non-working seniors on the working population. Even presently, there are too many sadhus and ‘saints’ doing nothing and living parasitic lives burdening the working people.

In a separate article, I have shown how the people of Mahabharat era stuck to the class part but not to the stage part of this system. Mahabharat

Celibacy:

Almost all religions give excessive if not exclusive importance to the concept of celibacy known to Hindus as ‘brahmacharya’. The word ‘saint’ has been made so cheap that anyone claiming to be a celibate is called one.

The basis for such importance is obscure. It is presumed that God would be so foolish as to give some organs to human beings but want them not to use them. If this is not an insult to God, what else is?

Celibates are not necessarily always good people. They have the same common shortcomings that the non-celibates have. And yet, simply by claiming to be celibates, they get lot of respect and many privileges.

The concept of celibacy only helps the religious leaders to maintain their stranglehold on their followers. Hardly any person can be a true celibate. Almost all of those who claim to be celibates are either impotent like Devavrata (Bhishma of Mahabharat) or pretenders. But, since the common people simply cannot be celibates, they suffer from guilty conscience and keep respecting and worshipping the imposters.

The revelations of sexual scandals in many religious organizations bear witness to the fact that celibacy can only be faked. But instead of amending the religious doctrine, the leaders either try to cover up the violations or just blame the individuals exposed by the scandals. They also protect those that are not exposed so far.

Some people do let their sexual instinct or activity interfere with performance of their duties. One should not. Some others tend to be promiscuous which is bad too. People are either obsessed with sex or against it. Both are wrong. A proper balance of spousal sex within marriage with respect to the other functions of life is what needs to be achieved and maintained.

Some leaders forbid sex even between husband and wife unless the purpose is to have a child. Such prohibition is unnatural. If sex were meant only for creating babies, God would have given mating seasons to humans just as Ge did for some other species. Consensual sex between spouses as an expression of love and a source of pleasure is a divine gift and must not be abhorred.

The insistence of abstinence between spouses also serves as a ‘deal breaker’. For example, Gandhiji gave a commendable set of ‘virtues’ worth developing by people. They are; truthfulness, nonviolence, not stealing, not collecting unnecessary things, self-help, discarding untouchability, fearlessness, use of indigenous products, selflessness and considering all religions equal. He also included celibacy among the above. Now, almost no one can practice it. As a result, people also gave up the other qualities. This is the most important reason why Indians forgot the teachings of Gandhiji soon after his death.

People are obsessed either for sex or against it. Many take aphrodisiacs like Viagra to enhance their sexual prowess. Many others curb their sex instinct by avoiding certain foods or even by taking some medicines. Both are improper ways to treat sexual instinct. Only what comes naturally should be enjoyed for the pleasure of both the spouses and not just one of them.

Sharing knowledge:

Vishnu, in his sixth incarnation, refused to share his martial skill (vidya) with the very people who were supposed to be warriors and even tried to annihilate them. Had he not failed miserably then, Vishnu, in his eighth incarnation, could not have claimed to have created the system of the four classes (‘chaturvarnyam‘). He also said that he had given the spiritual knowledge of yoga, not to sages who were Brahmins, but to kings of Kshatriya descent and also gave it to another Kshatriya. Why would Vishnu behave differently in different incarnations? The ‘great’ sages who wrote these ‘great’ stories goofed.

Krishna said, “I told this indestructible (avyayam) yoga to Vivasvan (sun god). Vivasvan told it to Manu. Manu told it to Ikshvaku. In such a tradition the ‘saintly kings knew it. Yoga perished (yogo nashtah) due to long time.” (Gita 4:1 and 4:2) The literal meaning contradicts right then and there. Since the yoga was supposed to be indestructible, it could not have perished. The intended meaning is that the yoga was forgotten. Now let us look at what really happened. The reason why the yoga was forgotten can be found hidden in the second verse itself. Krishna did not realize it but the yoga was forgotten because it was kept restricted to the ‘saintly’ kings (Rajarshi) only. It was not allowed to be shared with even the non-king sages let alone the common people. Over time, the kings ceased to be ‘saintly’ and ignored to remember and pass on the knowledge to their followers. As a result, our ‘great’ culture could not preserve its most important aspect. This happened when it was under no attack from other religions; Buddhism, Islam and Christianity had not been initiated and Judaism was still outside India. Now, if this is not a matter of shame, what else could be? Why then are we so boastful of our ‘greatness’?

Soul’s Religion

There is an interesting event in Mahabharat. On learning that Abhimanyu was killed, Arjun gave up his Gandiva and proclaimed that he would not fight any more. Although this proves that Krishna failed to impart his ‘philosophy’ to Arjun let us see what happened further.

That night, Krishna took Arjun to a forest and showed him a newly born baby parrot in a nest saying that the parrot had Abhimnyu’s soul. Arjun tried to talk to the baby parrot addressing him as ‘son’. But the parrot said some thing to like, “Who are you calling ‘son’? Granted that I was your son in my previous incarnation, but then I have also been your father in many previous births. Right now, there is no relationship between us but you are likely to be my son.” Thereupon. Arjun realized his mistake and withdrew his decision to stop fighting.

The parrot’s statement is applicable to all of us. Each of us has had many previous births. * Each time one had some religion, mostly that of one’s parents. Now, it is not necessary that a soul born in one religion would always be borne in that religion. (If that were the case where did the souls of Buddhists, Christians and Muslims come from?) A soul might have been born as a Hindu several times, but may as well have been born many a times as a follower of some other religion. What then makes Hinduism one’s religion except that the parents were Hindus? But then what made them Hindus? The truth is, Na dharma lipyate nare, religion does not stick to the soul. Being so, all the quarrels and petty vanities that we exhibit are baseless.

(* The theory that we get human form only after going through 8.4 million births in the non-human species and by performing ‘poonya’ (good acts) in those births is simply unsound. The other species only obey their natural instincts committing neither sin nor ‘poonya’. Therefore, birth as a human being cannot be the result of good acts in the previous births as non-humans.)

Broken Promise

Krishna told Arjun, “Hato va prapsyasi svargam jitva va bhokshyase maheem (If you get killed you will get heaven, or if you win you will enjoy land-ownership.” (Gita 2:37) Arjun could not have been lured by the thought of going to heaven because he had already been there and rejected the advances of Urvashi. On the other hand, after winning the war, he did not enjoy kingliness at all. So, on both the counts, Krishna was wrong. Besides, there was no guarantee that Yudhishthira would not place him on bet again, lose him and make him a slave of someone else.

Again, Krishna promised, “Sarva dharmanparityajya mamaekam sharanam vraja, aham tva sarva papebhyo: mokshayishe ma shuch: (Give up all sects and surrender only to me; I shall relieve you of all sins; do not worry.” (Gita 18:66) Mark the word ‘sarva’ (‘all’) and then remember what happened to Arjun at the end of his life. He could not enter the heaven. His wife-betting brother could and so could the dog. (It is said that Yudhishthira could enter because he never told a lie, but then did Arjun ever tell one?) This is the same Arjun who was admitted to the heaven during his youth. Yudhishthira explained that Arjun had some sin left disqualifying him from entering the heaven. But if Krishna had promised to relieve Arjun of all his sins, what was left? Obviously, Krishna did NOT keep his promise. If he could betray his best friend and devotee, why would not he betray others? But was it betrayal or was he simply adhering to his own rules? Then again, if he intended to stick to the rules why did he make the promise?

The truth is even God, whether we call Krishna one or not, cannot and would not exempt us from the consequences of our actions no matter how great Gis devotees we might be. God cannot perform Gis duties if Ge starts forgiving people for being devotees or out of kindness of Gis heart. We must forgive others but not expect to be forgiven for any of our acts.

Religious Freedom

Currently there is an overabundance of talk about religious freedom. However, the phrase ‘religious freedom’ is the worst oxy-moron. Religions deny freedoms.

Our most important freedoms religions take away are those to pray God spontaneously and to think individually. As a Hindu, I am not free to condemn Rama for subjecting Sita to inhuman testing and unjust punishment. To convert, I must give up my freedom to recognize God’s right to have many sons (and daughters) like Jesus, or to keep sending many more prophets like Mohamed, or to exist even out side some Promised Land or so on. Therefore, converting from one religion to another is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Yet, many so called ‘intelligent’ people do so.

Being religious requires replacing one’s faith in God, Gis principles and Gis ability to reach all individuals separately and directly with that in some book or the other. God is above and beyond all religions. Therefore what mankind really needs is freedom from religion rather than the freedom to choose one’s captor. Let us liberate God and ourselves from the shackles of all religions.

Mahabharat

Home