24 May 1998, 985 words
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