Why I am still not a Hindu

In a letter to the editor last week, a really, really devout Hindu called for a ban on newspapers using pictures of Hindu deities. I doubt the newspapers will comply but, since I am a firm believer in satyam (presenting facts as they are for the benefit of others) I must warn him that he must never look at the photograph which appears with this column. This is not because I consider my photo god-like, but because the Brhad-visnu-smrti says,  “One who considers Krsna to be material should be driven out from all rituals...And if one accidentally sees his face, one should at once take a bath in the Ganges to rid oneself of infection.” I do not take part in rituals, although I do go for chataigne and pumpkin and paratha when my Auntie Rose has a puja, but I don’t consider Krsna to be a supernatural being. So, if this warning has come too late, I’m afraid the wanna-be censor will have to hop a plane to India as soon as possible. Since I have medha (the ability to read books on different subjects and apply the knowledge), I am convinced that Krsna and every other Hindu deity, if they existed at all, were just kings and other rulers who spread the propaganda that they were gods. This is a common ploy of the powerful in all cultures, especially in Hinduism. In The Golden Bough, James Frazer’s classic work on myths, Frazer notes, “No country in the world has been so prolific of human gods as India; nowhere has the divine grace been poured out in more liberal measure on all classes of society, from kings down to milkmen.” The Bhagavadgita, I notice, doesn’t even claim to have been handed down by Krsna. It is in fact a story of the “He said that he said that he said” type.

It begins with King Dhrtarastra asking his son Sanjaya about a battle, Sanjaya tells Dhrtarastra what King Duryodhana said to his teacher, and it then goes on to the main text, which is a conversation between Arjuna, a prince, and Krsna, a supposed incarnation of God. The reader knows that Krsna’s supposed to be God because Krsna says he’s God. This assertion is an excellent example of anavastha (lack of firm grounding) and so would not persuade any rational person, which is no doubt why the majority of believers find it so convincing. When it comes to debate, believers are interested only in vitanda (choosing arguments not to reveal truth, but to defeat an opponent). And no doubt it is for this reason that the Bhagavadgita (and the Bible and the Qu’ran) goes out of its way to badtalk people like me. “Those who say the world has no purpose or cause, other than desire, do not know how to act properly.  Neither cleanliness nor truth nor proper action is found in them.” In fact, I bathe regularly (and even more frequently when I am with an attractive woman), am very rigorous about the truth (unless I’m trying to seduce an attractive woman), and act quite properly (unless the attractive woman wants me to be quite improper). Indeed, it is partly because of its teachings about women that I cannot be a Hindu. The Bhagavadgita groups women with merchants and workers as being of “lower birth” and asserts that when dharma is not followed “the women of the family become corrupt and have unwanted children.” The Manusamhita, which is the main lawbook for Hindus, says that women should not be given freedom but should be treated like children. But me, I don’t consider such views to be proper at all.

Of course, propriety can be a very subjective kind of thing. And it is true that what the ancient Hindu texts consider to be proper I consider quite shocking. For example, the Manusamhita says that a sudra (worker) must not acquire riches since this would offend the brahmins.  It also says that a lower caste person who attacks a brahmin must have his hand or foot cut off, while if he just abuses the brahmin verbally he must have a hot dagger put in his mouth. The Bhagavadgita also supports this oppressive system. “Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras are distinguished by the qualities they are born with into the world,” it says, adding that “It is better to engage in one’s given duty, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s duty and perform it perfectly.” The Bhagavadgita even exempts the ruling classes from actions that would normally be considered evil, saying “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.” Indeed, while it condemns even erudite, conscientious non-believers as evil, it goes so far to say that those who worship Krsna can do whatever the hell they like: “Even if a man commits the most abominable action, if he is devout he must be considered holy because he is true in his worship.” This must give great comfort to rapists and child-molesters. As one who possesses buddhih, which is the attribute of analysing things in their proper perspective, I can only conclude that such texts are intended to prevent social mobility so that the ruling class can continue ruling as they want. That the Bhagavadgita, far from being a supernatural text, is mainly the propaganda of the powerful, is therefore svatah prasiddhih (self-evident). Hindu apologists assert that such laws no longer apply, but this is hardly an example of jalpa (objective argument). Their assertion leads to several obvious questions: (1) Does God change his mind? (2) Did he not know the laws were unjust? (3) Is he just cruel? (4) Are the texts not reliable? My parvapakua is, I think, logically irrefutable. But, of course, logic has never given the devout pause, for assammoha is what defines the true believer. It is true, however, that some Hindus prefer to apply the syad-vada method, which holds that there are 353 different viewpoints on any question. I myself believe that all important questions are complex, but I think if someone asked “Is Sat Maharaj cute?” there would be 352 similar answers, and one more from Devant Parsuram Maharaj.
E-mail:kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com
Website:
www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh