2011/03/03
ARIFF SHAH, R.K., Penang
letters@nst.com
letters@nst.com
I REFER to the letters "It is division of labour" by Datuk J. Jegathesan (NST, Feb 17), "Facing up to issues" by Universiti Sains Malaysia vice-chancellor Professor Tan Sri Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (NST, Feb 20) and "Where is the glorious past?" by Dr G. Johnson (NST, Feb 20). I thank the vice-chancellor for his good intentions in writing his article as it has generated much information and this helps the nation to understand the issue better.
I thank Jegathesan for his kind words, and feel honoured to embrace him as my brother, too. Jegathesan is a great admirer of Islam. It is people like him, who see no distinction between men, that the world needs.
As a Muslim, it is incumbent upon me to state the truth, to assist in correcting wrong perceptions and create peace among all of us in whatever way we can.
Just like Islam, which has been unfairly and unjustly associated with terrorism by the West, Hinduism was misinterpreted with a hidden agenda as stated in my earlier letter.
With regard to The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy by E.D. Hirsh Jr et al. (2002) and the chapter "World Literature, Philosophy, and Religion" on the Brahmins being followers of Brahma, which was quoted by Dzulkifli, allow me to explain who Brahma is and why I stated that Brahmins are not followers of Brahma.
I must admit that this religion is the most misunderstood in the world.
Even the term "Hinduism" itself is incorrect. The name for this religion is Sanathana Dharma, which means The Eternal Law.
Contrary to popular belief, Hindus do not have a million gods!
According to the Upanishads, the Puranas, the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita, there is only one formless God known to them as "Brahman", who is "One without a second".
The Westerners who read the Upanishads did not understand the statement Sarvam Brahma Mayam, which translates as "All is Brahman".
To the Hindus, this verse is the golden key to learn and understand the universal eternal principle.
The Brahman is said to manifest itself into Brahma (generator), Vishnu (organiser) and Shiva (destroyer).
From Vishnu, comes the "Avatars". The term Avatar has been misused recently for commercial purposes, especially by Hollywood.
According to the Upanishads, the Avatars are, in fact, Brahman incarnate. As to why Avatars descend, this can be found in the Bhagavad Gita when Sri Krishna explains to the warrior Arjuna: "Whenever and wherever there is a decline of righteousness, O descendant of Bharat, and a predominant rise of irreligion, at that time I descend myself."
According to the Hindus, each era or yuga has a specific Avatar. In the era of Treata was Sri Rama while the Dwapara saw Sri Krishna.
This era, according to them, is the age of darkness where war, famine and unrighteousness are on the rise and they await another Avatar of the Brahman to descend that will be divided into three different aspects.
Confused already?
From this, one would realise that Hinduism is a complex religion and cannot be understood superficially.
One may find many temples of Sri Krishna, Sri Rama, Vishnu and Shiva, but never a Brahma temple as there was never an incarnation of Brahma into the material world.
The West was utterly confused by all this. What is stated in Hirsh's book is inaccurate.
Dzulkifli also mentioned "the Aryan Brahmins carried out conversion". Unlike other great religions of the world, the concept of conversion does not exist in this religion.
Here, they believe that everybody has a connection with God the moment they are born, regardless of their religious beliefs, and Hinduism wants man to reawaken this sacred relationship.
Sacred texts, teachers and temples are provided to their followers for that purpose. Again, the West got confused with the "twice-born" or "Dwijas" ceremony.
It is a rite of initiation into spiritual life where the twice-born begins to recognise the Brahman, as in the fire they revere during the ceremony, and worship the Brahman.
One would also find that these same Westerners mistook the Shiva Lingam for a penis when in fact, according to the Upanishads, it is a visible symbol of the Brahman to symbolise the beginning-less and endless, and that all forms merge into the formless Brahman when the world ends.
Johnson's letter, "Where is the glorious past?", I'm afraid, contained some inaccuracies.
Johnson stated that the Aryans "brought with them the Rig-Veda, the oldest collection of Vedic hymns composed in Punjab in about 1,200 to 1,000 BC".
Now, if they had already brought the Rig-Veda into India, what was there for them to compose again?
An interesting point to note here is the birth of the Buddha in 2,500BC and according to Johnson, he was born a Hindu prince and renounced religion as he was disgusted with the caste system.
If the Buddha did that as he claimed, it means that Hinduism was in ancient India way before the arrival of the so-called Aryans.
Since he stated that the Buddha renounced God, let me explain a fact which many around the world are not aware of.
If one were to search and read certain surviving Pali and Sanskrit manuscripts in India and Nepal that escaped destruction by invaders, one would find that the Buddha did not preach against God or the Vedas.
The Buddha was against the caste system but he was not against God. So, what did he teach?
The Brahman was referred to as Vijnana (the highest wisdom) by Buddha. During that period, people did not want anything to do with the Vedas as the Brahmins were misusing and abusing it.
The Buddha, however, was full of reverence for the Vedas and he was always meditating on Brahman. The Buddha taught that man should cultivate the following:
- Samyag-Dhristhi -- pure vision
- Samyag-Sankalpa -- pure thoughts
- Samyag-Dharshanam -- watching holy things
- Samyag-Vaak -- purity in speech
- Samyag-Karma -- pure deeds
- Samyag-Shurthi -- listening to holy words from one's own religion
- Samyag-Jeevanam -- living a pure life
- Samyag-Saadhana -- achieving the highest goal
- Samyag-Nirvana -- pure realisation.
The Buddha stressed that mankind must see good, think good, speak good and do good.
I hope this clears up the misconception about the great Buddha.
Johnson stated that the Sudra came from the feet of the Purusha (another term for the Brahman).
This shows how important the Sudra is to society as, in Hinduism, the Lord's feet are highly worshipped.
No caste is superior to the other. Imagine if the feet are injured, all other limbs suffer, too. This principle has to be understood properly.
He also challenged Dzulkifli when he asked "where is the glorious past of this 'cursed lot'?"
Well, the answer can be found in the ancient "Smriti" where it states: "A Brahmin should not ask a Sudra property for a sacrifice... A Kshatriya shall pass through misfortunes which has befallen him by the strength of his arms, a Vaisya and a Sudra by their wealth."
From the above, one would find that the Sudra were wealthy during ancient times.
It must be understood that the duty of the Sudra was to feed and foster the community. That was how important the Sudra was.
Johnson also stated that the Ramayana degraded the South Indians as a race of monkeys.
This great epic does not degrade anybody. It teaches the real significance of the family, the sanctity of society and, above all, human values.
In the Ramayana, King Janaka called for a competition to see which king or prince could lift a certain bow of Shiva. The person who successfully lifted the bow would marry the princess Sita.
Even kings and princes from South India were invited to participate, and they were not monkeys.
That fact alone proves the Ramayana does not degrade South Indians. Also, the king who ruled Lanka at that time was Ravana.
Ravana was a southerner and he was no monkey either. In fact, Ravana performed Vedic rituals, studied the Vedas and worshipped Brahman in his Shiva aspect.
When Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Rama and Lakshmana went in search of her. They met Jatayu, described as a giant bird that tried to save the princess but sadly, had her wings sliced off by Ravana.
Before Jatayu died, she advised Rama to go to the mountains and search for the monkeys. Note that Rama was to go in search of the monkeys in the mountains, and not in the cities or towns of the South Indians.
Surprisingly, many have failed to note that the Ramayana itself invalidates the Aryan invasion theory.
If one were to observe the conversation between Ravana and Sita during her abduction, Ravana boasted that he was 2,000 years old.
Ravana could be lying but what we can gather here is that there were already people in South India following the Vedic lifestyle way before the Aryans came.
If one were to read the Vedic texts of the time period before the Ramayana, one would realise that in South India, there were already great emperors such as Bali, from whose time the Onam celebrations are said to originate.
There is a lot to learn about this religion, Hinduism.
ReplyDelete