Hinduism

I continued reading the book, because (surprisingly) I found it very interesting. Many of us find it convenient to rubbish Hinduism as a whole without knowing enough about it. I think we should equip ourselves with enough knowledge before coming to a conclusion.

Firstly, it was more a way of life than a religion. Secondly, this 'religion' has no name! In early days, it was the only religion here in India. Everyone followed it right? So there was no need for a name. When the first ‘invaders’ came in, they came over the Sind river; so the country became Ind-ia, and the religion Indians followed, ‘Indi-ism’ which became ‘Hinduism’. This was the fact that bowled me over and made me continue reading.

Society at that point consisted of people who could be grouped into (the now famous) four groups – Brahmins who studied the Vedas and Upanishads and conducted pujas; Kshatriyas who went to war, Vaishyas who were traders; and Shudras, who did all kinds of community services. The kind of group a person belonged to was NOT determined by birth - it was determined by their interest. At no point do the Vedas, Upanishads or anything else mention which group was greater; there is no hierarchy mentioned anywhere. In early gurukulas, children learned things according to their liking – the Vedas and Upanishads, or archery, or trading principles – and NOT according to their birth.

But what has happened today? Over the years, the true meaning of Hinduism has been modified to such an extent that what remains is a strife ridden admixture of belief in the wrong ideals and false hierarchies. A sad state indeed.
Because when the concept of this no-name religion took birth, an intrinsic character of the religion was its openness and its malleability. The various principles of Hinduism are always open to debate. In fact, the Upanishads are presented in the form of debates. The idea is that people read extensively, then debate about what they have read, and then are free to believe what they want to believe! So, you can be an agnostic and still be a Hindu! I think this is a great idea. The very same traits have allowed it to be wrongly interpreted. It seems that in Sanskrit, many words have multiple meanings. This has been an important reason for wrong interpretations. But, I still find the idea of Shiva and Parvati canoodling in Mount Kailash a little ridiculous. But why rubbish the religion and its underlying, very flexible principles?

I feel the reason why some people are ‘religious’ is threefold – one, if they blindly follow their elders; second, if they don’t have enough belief in themselves or if their circumstances are so bad that they need some straw to clutch. Third, if they have reached a stage in their life when there is nothing more that is new, they want to occupy their minds with something that allows them to set goals and work towards them.
My parents belong to the third category. Rather than judging them for being religious, I appreciate the fact that they are engaged in an attempt to improve their minds with the challenge of understanding the fundamentals of their religion after digging deep, instead of taking things at face value. And, I must mention, I appreciate them for not forcing me into any of this, and letting me be. All this I read up of my own accord, not because they asked me to! I asked a question and was given suitable books to read. I really, really appreciate that.