|
NOT TRIBUTES TO HINDUISM
de hari.kumar 06/09/2006 11:51
Why I Am Not A Hindu
There are several reasons I am not a Hindu. The main one is that my
surname is Baldeosingh. The "singh" means that I am - or at least my
ancestors were - ksatriya, which is a member of the administrative and
warrior caste. According to Hindu tradition, a ksatriya is supposed to
battle or gamble whenever he is so invited by a rival party. To refuse
would be to defy dharma. But, me, I don't even play Play-Whe; and I
absolutely hate to battle.
According to the founder of the International Society for Krsna
Consciousness, Swami Prabhupada, a ksatriya has to kill his enemies
and tell lies for the sake of diplomacy. I, no doubt because my
great-grandparents crossed the kali pani, prefer to reason with my
enemies and to tell the truth even when it offends. But that would
entail being like a brahmana and the Bhagavadgita clearly states that
"It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may
perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and
perform it perfectly." (Chapter18, Text 47.)
I suppose I should feel some pride in the fact that I could kill
another person without accruing any karma on my immortal soul. The
Bhagavadgita is actually one long argument between a prince, Arjuna,
and Krsna, supposedly an incarnation of God, about why Arjuna should
kill his enemies (among whom are several relatives.) Arjuna, being a
unbloodthirsty sort of chap, says, "Sin will overcome us if we slay
such aggressors...How could we be happy killing our own kinsmen?"
(1:36) Krsna's reply is, "My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities
come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value
of life."(2: 2).
Now, in talking about "the value of life", Krsna is not saying what
you might think he is saying. What he means is, the value of life is
about the same as Basdeo Panday's sworn word. The Bhagavadgita says,
"Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer, nor he who thinks
it slain, is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain."
(2:19) Moreover, "One who is not motivated by false ego, whose
intelligence is not entangled, though he kills people in this world,
does not kill, nor is he bound by his actions."(18:17) This would lend
great comfort to me were I embarking on a career as a serial killer or
testing nuclear weapons but, since I'm merely a writer, such texts do
not salve my shallow materialist conscience at all.
Indeed, I'm not even in favour of the death penalty, but the
Manu-samhita says that a murderer who is condemned to death is
actually being done a favour, because he won't suffer for the great
sin he has committed. (This, I suppose, explains why Ramesh Lawrence
Maharaj has been grinning like a demented corkscrew every time he
appears to TV to discuss the "schedule" for the neck-popping parties
the Government is so anxious to throw.)
Another obstacle to my being a Hindu has to do with my intellect. My
brain is my second most highly-valued organ, but the Bhagavadgita
says, "For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of
friends, but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the
greatest enemy." (6:6). And how does one conquer the mind? Why, "Just
fix your mind upon the Supreme Godhead, and engage all your
intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt."
(12:8) But I would get every worried if I was ever "without a doubt",
because I've noticed that assammoha, or freedom from doubt, is
responsible for most of the suffering in this world. I also prefer my
mental horizons to be a little wider than Hinduism recommends. The
Upanishads say that "God is the eternal blissful form of knowledge"
and describe Him as "the pleasure of the senses and the cows." I
suspect that the same effects can be got from using marijuana, but I
don't intend to smoke a joint, either.
The Hindu principles I do adhere to are satyam which means presenting
facts as they are for the benefit of others; buddhih, which is the
attribute of analyzing things in their proper perspective; and medha,
which is the power to read many books on different subjects and to
understand and apply the knowledge. But it is these very attributes
which prevent me from being a Hindu (though Kumar Mahabir apparently
gets along quite well without them.) My intellect simply refuses to
believe in unprovable or improbable entities, like God.
This in itself makes me a danger to good Hindus, for the
Brhad-visnu-smrti says, "One who considers Krsna to be material should
be driven out from all rituals...And if one by chance sees his face,
one should at once take a bath in the Ganges to rid himself of
infection", so any devout Hindu reading this column should probably
take the precaution of covering my photo. I'll probably reincarnate as
a dog because of my disbeliefs, but if that happens I'll try to be a
good dog so that when I reincarnate again I can be reborn in a higher
position, like maybe a UNC Cabinet Minister. (Hang on, I won't have to
reincarnate again for that.)
At any rate, if I can't be a Hindu, I can at least take comfort in the
fact that many of those who profess to be so aren't, either. The
Bhagavadgita lists the qualities of a true Hindu as "One who does not
think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego...who is
tolerant, self-controlled" (12:14), which excludes both Mr Panday and
Sat Maharaj. Other qualities are truthfulness, freedom from anger,
aversion to fault-finding, and forgiveness(16:1-3), so Anil Mahabir,
Kamal Persad and Rajnie Ramlakhan can all go take a flying hike.
Copyright ©1998 Kevin Baldeosingh
| NOT TRIBUTES TO HINDUISM | hari.kumar | |
| Re: NOT TRIBUTES TO HINDUISM | IT | |
| Re: NOT TRIBUTES TO HINDUISM | me | |
| Re: NOT TRIBUTES TO HINDUISM | Weezel |