Author: George Thundiparambil,
Germany
Publication: IndiaCause.com
Date: May 26, 2003
URL: http://www.indiacause.com/OL_030526.htm
The Vedas and the Original Sin
Since the publication of "The Source
of Bias against Hindus" at IndiaCause, I came to know more of the affront
to the Indian community and also of the depths which western and Indian
"secular" academicians traverse just to paint a miserable picture of Indian
culture and religion. Many of my readers responded, among them some Indian
Christians who, I discern from their aggressive postures, probably were
taken aback by my calling Christianity fundamentally flawed. I accept that
they have every right to question my claim on civilized terms and conditions.
One of those readers even seemed to have doubts about which 'Hindus' I
was referring to; probably a veiled finger pointed at the several 'jathis'
making up the fabric of Hindu society, or an attempt to make a distinction
between Vedic Hindus and others. To such of my readers, I would recommend
www.hindu.org and www.atributetohinduism.com for a good start on coming
to know who is a Hindu, and what is Hinduism. For the benefit of my readers
who are shocked by the charge of the basic flaw in Christianity, I must
explain a bit more, but after planting both my legs firmly on this blessed
earth.
We start from the basic premise
that we are all human beings regardless of religious beliefs and practices.
Human beings are distinct from other organic beings in this world by the
characteristic of abstract reasoning. We come to know what is happening
light years away or at the sub-atomic level through abstract reasoning.
That is to say, at the basic level, humans can be defined as that specie
distinguished by reasoning, or in other words, the ones who think. The
real history of humans is the history of thought. The Rig-Veda is the first
human literature, and thereby forms the genesis of human thought. In biological
terms, it marks the birth of the human gene. Humans expect things to happen
as they think how it will happen, because every progress that they have
made was won by reasoning based on experience. Every technical progress
that humankind has made came to us through the age-old process called trial-and-error.
The same stands for spiritual progress. When something happens contrary
to experience, humans panic. Adi-Sankara has told us to reject the scriptures
and not experience when they contradict each other, for which act the great
acharya was excommunicated from his own Namboothiri 'jathi' by its foolish
leaders. The acharya has further told us that scriptures are something
to be understood literally and not to be interpreted, and that's how the
verity of a text can ever be verified.
An Indian Christian who lives in
America writes to me after reading my article: "The Christians do know
for sure, that Christianity is not just a religion, it's a way of life,
and the only sure way to heaven. And for that reason and because of the
great commission given by Jesus himself, we the Christians do want the
people from other religions to know this truth and accept Christ as their
saviour. This truth needs to be heard and accepted by even the so-called
"liberal Christians", who compromise the word of God and believe in "all
religions are same" or "all Gods are equal" theories, which is a lie and
many other half truths."
The Rig-Veda says, "Truth is one,
but sages call it by various names." Therefore, the Christian quoted above
calls the Hindu scriptures a "lie". I am not mentioning this to inflame
passions, but to spur thinking and examine the two opposing statements
which make up the basic characteristics of two religions. The Christian
position is: "Jesus is the only truth." Evidently, Jesus is not the 'truth'
that Rig-Veda is talking about, or he wouldn't be unique. As human beings,
we are made equal by the sword of reason. We cannot accept both to be valid.
Therefore we will proceed to examine further.
The Christian statement is the challenger
to the former, not the least in a chronological sense. The Rig-Vedic statement
existed before Jesus made his claim as the unique 'truth'. So it is up
to the challenger to prove himself, because experientially speaking, it
is not every day that somebody pops up and claims to have the monopoly
on truth.
The said Christian correspondent
writes further: "No religion, other than Christianity, promises a sure
way to heaven, and no person other than Jesus himself has claimed to be
God or God's son."
So, the claim is that Jesus is unique
because he is the "son of God" and has "promised a sure way to heaven".
(Intellectually, one can argue for
the case of one god with the same reasons that can be applied to argue
for the case of a multitude of gods, not to mention the existence of numerous
devils. It may also be proved that a god could have a son, if at all the
existence of a god could be proved, but it is another matter to prove that
he could have only one son. One can also argue that there is neither god
nor devil, because we have no material evidence outside books.)
The crux of Christian theology is
the concept of 'original sin'. If there is no 'original sin', Jesus Christ
is a paper saviour. From what does he save us, if not from the 'original
sin'? The Christian belief is that humans are convicted to fiery hell from
their origins and one needs to baptise and come into the grace of the son
of god in order to circumvent this punishment and gain eternal life in
heaven. (We are not concerned here with Christians who do not believe in
Jesus as a saviour from original sin, or as the son of god, because then
that Jesus is not unique and thereby do not challenge the Rig-Vedic statement.)
So, we'll have a close look at this enigmatic 'original sin' and how it
came to be.
Having had the saviour, it was tough
going for the early fathers of Christianity to decide on what exactly was
the 'original sin' from which their saviour had saved them. After internecine
battles, each calling the other heretic, everyone settled for the authority
of Paul, the writer of the 'Epistles' in the New Testament. He points out
that the 'original sin' is the "disobedience of one man", which alludes
to Adam's rejection of the 'Lord God's' command to avoid the "fruit of
the tree of knowledge", and which offence is alleged to have become binding
to the whole human specie. I shall illustrate the sequence from the Bible,
so that one can judge for oneself with total objectivity.
1. "And the 'Lord God' commanded
the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; But
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it;
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis
2 : 16-17.
2. "And the serpent said unto the
woman, Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing
good and evil." - Genesis 3 : 4-5
3. "And when the woman saw that
the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a
tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and
did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." - Genesis
3 : 6
4. "And the eyes of them both were
opened . . . ." - Genesis 3 : 7
5. "And the 'Lord God' said, Behold,
the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
for ever. . . .So he drove out the man . . . " - Genesis 3 : 22-24
(The biblical quotes are all from
the King James Version)
The "knowledge of good and evil"
comprises the whole range of knowledge.
Statement 1 is made by the 'Lord
God', the supposed father of Jesus.
Statement 2 is made by a serpent
who is portrayed as an antagonist of the 'Lord God'. Statements both 1
and 2 pertain to the same topic, but are opposing prognoses of the effect
of eating the forbidden fruit.
Statement 3 indicates that the woman
proceeded to pluck and eat the fruit after making an evaluation for herself,
like any other woman who would go to an orchard and pick fruit, eat and
then share it with others.
Statement 4 affirms that the statement-2
prognosis is correct with regard to the effect of eating the forbidden
fruit and endorses the serpent's version as the correct one.
Statement 5 which is a statement
made by the 'Lord God' himself, once again endorses the view of the serpent
and he "drove out the man" so that he does not eat the fruit of the tree
of life and live forever. From this admission of the 'Lord God', it is
apparent that without eating the fruit of knowledge, it would be impossible
to reach for the fruit of life and live an eternal life. Unwittingly, he
also admits that he is only "one of us", which means he is "one" of many
"gods".
Before we examine whether the human
act constitutes a disobedience, we have to understand the circumstances
(the setup) which created it, so that we can relate to it in order to judge
it. It means that we have to compare it with something already existing
prior to that. We have to evaluate the dramatic setup with the scale of
our prior experience in order to make head or tails out of a truly bizarre
scenario.
The said Christian correspondent
writes in the same letter, "When God created man, evil was already present."
The "evil" the correspondent speaks
about is the serpent who was already existent, when the 'Lord God' was
manufacturing humans, and who divulged information to the woman, the verity
of which is endorsed by its opponent the 'Lord God' himself (statement
5). Therefore, in order to truly understand the 'original sin' setup, we
have to identify and place the serpent in our consciousness, because it
was already existent prior to the genesis of 'original sin'. That is, it
was already existing in human consciousness. It means we have to look in
prior scriptures.
So, we look at the Vedas which was
existing prior to the advent of the Bible.
'Adi-Sesha', which means the 'serpent
of the primal age', is an appellation of Siva.
As a symbol, the serpent is Siva's
ornament.
Siva is addressed by the term Jnanamurti
- the embodiment of knowledge.
Siva is the singular god who grants
immortality ("fruit of eternal life") to his devotees (see Markandeya-purana
for identity of messages: "Ye shall not surely die" of statement 2).
See the two quotes on Knowledge
from the Vedas:
"May us guru and sishya be together
blessed by the one that is jnanaswarupa (substantiated knowledge). Let
him nourish and animate both of us with the exalted fruit which is called
knowledge." - Kadopanishad
"O Sathakritho, if you, kind as
you are, desire to bestow happiness on us, please let us be gifted with
the most auspicious wealth of jnana (knowledge)." - Sama Veda, verse 173
From experience, we find that the
Genesis of the Bible is an attack on the already existing concepts such
as Knowledge (as "auspicious wealth") and Siva (as a spiritual symbol).
We also find that the motivation for this attack is the 'Lord God's' animosity
against human beings whose quest for eternal life had to be thwarted one
way or the other, and towards this purpose, he lies.
The 'original sin' of the human
beings is the consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In any
secular court of law, this act cannot be proved to be disobedience, since
the 'Lord God' lied about the effect of consumption of the fruit, and his
bogus command in the first place was made with an ulterior motive. Now
we have a new concept on our hands based on a false assumption; a whole
specie condemned for eternity because their ancestral mother exercised
her essence of 'thinking' and defied a god who lied about a certain fruit.
Any system of thought based on an illusory concept is itself fundamentally
flawed. In Christian theology, this problem is cunningly circumvented by
making the 'Lord God', the culprit himself, the Supreme Judge. In every
discussion, therefore, he has the last word.
It is also very clear that the charge
of 'original sin' is baseless, unwarranted and engineered to create havoc
among human beings by suppressing their very essence of 'thinking'. If
one cannot accept this spurious 'original sin' posited by Christians, there
is no room for any Jesus Christ. When somebody puts forward a case, there
should be some evidence that backs it up, and that evidence has to stand
up to human experience and logic. "If fifty million people speak a foolish
thing, it is still a foolish thing" - Bertrand Russel.
The uniqueness of Indian civilization
derives from her heart and soul - the Vedic thought - that redeems the
very essence of humanity from the stranglehold of ignorance. Have a look
at the English word 'good' from which the term 'god' is derived. It is
derived from the Sanskrit 'gadh' (to hold fast) which again is derived
from the root 'dhri' (that which holds), just as the word 'dharma' is.
The existence of the concepts projected by ashtaguna (octet of positive
excellences) before the appearance of the Bible redeems humanity from the
charge of original evil. Hear the Dalai Lama, a representative of a religion
older than Christianity, speak on this topic: "I believe that the basic
or underlying nature of human beings is gentleness." (The Essence of Happiness,
Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2001.)
The true greatness of the Vedas
is that it provides a basic philosophy (intellectual muscle) to the natural
spiritual expressions and spiritual evolution of humanity in all its hues
and creates a harmony in chaos. It teaches us, no matter who we are, to
perceive divinity in everything on this earth and beyond. Every form of
spiritual exercise is equally valid and as good as any other. This is the
hallmark of Vedic thought and forms the source of tolerance which distinguishes
Hinduism and the Indian culture from every other religion and culture.
This is the actual spiritual democracy, and not the freedom to convert
others as argued by Christianity.
Essentially, there is no 'sin' included
in Hinduism, let alone an 'original sin'. It is natural for humans to make
mistakes that have a potential to harm other beings (not just humans),
which are mentioned as paapa-karma. But mistakes are no 'sins' and occur
due to ignorance. But once the ignorance is removed, the mistake doesn't
repeat. On the other hand, an act of "charity" (such as the 'Lord God's'
command) with an ulterior motive is a misdemeanour, because that is definitely
unnatural, and it is what we in the civilized world call a 'fraud'. Acts
qualify according to the motivation.
If one looks at the western civilization,
inspite of all the progress it has made in matters of technology and a
certain refinement in polity that can be discerned in affairs within its
own boundaries, its interactions with other countries and peoples consist
of bullying, coercive methods and naked aggression. What I am suggesting
is that the western civilization has not progressed from the days of savagery
because of its dominance by Christian ideals. And the root problem that
I can see standing in the way between the Christian West and real progress
is the concept of 'original sin' and the phenomenal guilt it breeds. Voltaire
was persecuted by Christians for his view that humans were basically good.
The Christian West dominates the
world by sheer force and economic power alone, and not by the intellect,
nor by its secular ideals of democracy and liberty. All the brainpower
invested in the west is reduced to the strengthening of these two aspects
- force and money. As an example, the power wielded by the US over its
enemies as well as its allies consists purely of force and money. The moment
the US loses these two instruments of power, they are worth as much as
the contents of a garbage bag. This is true of all the western countries
in varying grades, and now by the sheer dominance of its practitioners,
this philosophy is being followed by non-Christian countries and is becoming,
if it hasn't already become, a well-established norm in world affairs.
Christians deify power, the great
symbol being the bearded father sitting in heaven eternally punishing and
rewarding. True to "thy kingdom come on earth", one may see this 'punishing
and rewarding' principle active in western international relations with
respect to their enemies and allies. As such, the Christian West can never
be objective especially where the non-baptised are involved, nor be spiritually
progressive as long as it is in the clutches of this bearded father in
heaven. Believing in a religion based on a malevolent and imaginary concept,
whose very existence is founded on an attack on the Vedas (Knowledge) itself,
how can a Christian be tolerant of Hinduism?
----------------------------------------
1 In Sivanandalahari, Adi-Sankara
addresses Siva as: "O bestower of happiness and the embodiment of all goodness."
2 Ashtaguna - Bhoothadaya (compassion),
Kshama (toleration), Anasooya (transcendence of envy), Shaucham (hygiene),
Anayasam (tranquility), Mangalam (benediction), Akaarpanyam (generosity)
and Aspriha (transcendence of desire for reward).
Note that this principle doesn't
apply to orthodox Christianity, since it is negated by its claim of uniqueness.
