What is unique about Hinduism ? How is it different from Christianity and Islam ?

Hindus are generally highly intelligent, because they don’t have to twist their mind into narrowness and fear !

(Introduction : Ms Maria Wirth is from Germany and has been in India for the past 38 years. She is the Author of the book ‘Thank you India – a German woman’s journey to the wisdom of Yoga’)

Someone asked me this question in the course of an interview. Here is what I replied – ‘Oh, there is so much uniqueness that it is hard to put it briefly’.

Sanatan Dharma is the original, complete knowledge about what is true

I consider Vaidik knowledge or Sanatan Dharma as the original, most ancient and complete knowledge about what is true regarding us and the Universe. It is called today inadequately ‘Hinduism’. An ‘ism’ usually means a fixed doctrine that must be believed, and Hinduism is the opposite of that. It allows the greatest freedom to connect with one’s essential Self, gives hints and methods, and does not go against one’s conscience. In contrast, Christianity and Islam put their doctrine above one’s individual conscience. This has led to great suffering for humanity

Later belief systems are limitations or distortions

The religious belief systems, which came later in time, are either limitations or distortions. Offshoots of Hindu Dharma, like Buddhism, are limitations of the vast ocean of knowledge, because they demand from the follower to identify with only one of the Sages or one set of Texts.

The Abrahamic religions are distortions because they demand not only belief in a Supreme Intelligence (in English called ‘God’), but also blind belief in wild claims about this God, which have no foundation in truth and actually are harmful for a harmonious living together.

Questions are encouraged

One more important difference : Hinduism encourages asking intelligent questions and using one’s intelligence to its fullest in the search for truth. Yet Christianity and Islam don’t want their followers to ask any questions or use their intelligence, but want them to meekly accept what they are taught as ‘the one and only truth’. This truth was allegedly revealed to only one human being and it divides humanity into those who follow this particular person and those who don’t. Those who don’t are dehumanized as unbelievers or heathen. This blind belief is of course not good for a healthy mindset, and the consequence of such fabricated division can be seen in history and also in the present.

In Hinduism, it matters WHAT is said and whether it makes sense and not so much who said it. Yet in Christianity and Islam, it only matters WHO said it. What the religious founder said must not be scrutinized but believed.

Unfortunately, a lot of knowledge got lost

Hinduism has incredible knowledge, even now, though a huge amount of it has been destroyed. Millions of Texts were burned in Nalanda and Vikramshila by people who believed that only ONE book matters. Millions of Hindus were killed, many Brahmans among them, who were seen as the biggest enemy, as they had the knowledge in their heads. The former Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram, Sri Chandrashekharendra Saraswati, said that at the start of Kali Yuga, Veda Vyasa divided the four Vedas into over thousand Shakas, to make it easier for the Brahmans in Kali Yuga to memorise them. Only eight are still preserved in full. Only eight of over one thousand …. What a painful loss !

Vedas were ‘seen’ or revealed

The insights of the Rishis were not ordinary. They shared what they had ‘seen’ in Cosmic awareness or in other words, the Vedas were revealed to them. This knowledge is said to be there right at the start of the Universe. In contrast, western historians claim that humans were primitive thousands of years ago. The great Sages who handed down the Vedas were definitely more advanced, and I wished Indian historians had the courage to stand by their inherited knowledge.

Just one example that completely stuns me : How could the ancient Indians map the sky so absolutely detailed and correctly ? How could they know the distance to the sun and the moon, or discern the planets of our solar system from stars ? How could they know that the twin stars of Vashishta and Arundhati, hardly visible, move around each other ? And even more astonishing, how could they develop Astrology, know the qualities of the planets, their influence ? It truly needed an intimate connection with the Cosmic awareness. They must have experienced that the whole cosmos with its planets and stars is alive, is a manifestation of Purusha himself, and they could reach out to it or rather see it within the vast space in themselves.

What is the greatest thing about being a Hindu ?

In my view the greatest thing about being a Hindu is that one can be an open-minded, ‘normal’ human being, who is given plenty of insights and tips from the Vedas and other ancient Texts on how to refine one’s character, how to anchor one’s awareness in the present and how to ultimately realise one’s oneness with the Divine Presence that is inside us and in everything.

A Hindu is not forced into a mental straitjacket. He does not need to think certain thoughts, which are against common sense and which are divisive, like for example the dogma of Christianity and Islam that we alone have the full or final truth, and the Almighty will make all those, who do not accept this ‘truth’ and convert to ‘our only true’ religion, suffer in hellfire forever.

A Hindu has his conscience and the insights of the ancient Rishis as his guide.

A Hindu is free to enquire into the truth and is encouraged to ask questions.

I suspect that this freedom of thought of Hindus and the assurance that ultimately all will reach the Divine (and actually are it already, even if they can’t feel it) has one more big advantage. It may be one of the reasons why Hindus are generally highly intelligent, because they don’t have to twist their mind into narrowness and fear.

Hinduism versus Hindutva

It is becoming a fashion to declare Hindutva as bad and Hinduism as good, mostly by people who don’t know from their own experience what it means to be a Hindu, like recently Rahul Gandhi or before him Salman Kurshid. Yet there are also people with Hindu names who endorse this view.

A few days ago, there was an article in Garhwal Post by Dr Satish C Aikant, who felt that Salman Kurshid, ‘by denouncing Hindutva for its deviation from Sanatan Dharma, he was indeed making a case for Hinduism’.

I wrote a reader’s letter to Garhwal Post : This refers to your article ‘Quibbling over Hinduism and Hindutva’ dated 12.12.21. The author writes, “It can be categorically stated that Hinduism and Hindutva are distinct and oppositional in nature. The distinction is however academic and cannot be appreciated by the common man”.

Is this not a bit arrogant towards the ‘common man’ ? Is this distinction not rather an academic and not very honest hairsplitting ? Hindutva is the Indian word for what the British called Hinduism.

Yet it is true, Hindutva denotes nowadays a more outspoken Hinduism. Do you remember the early days of the internet, when the so-called ‘internet Hindu’ was attacked for standing up for Hinduism ?

Now, instead of the ‘internet Hindu’, it’s called Hindutva, and certain sections of society are not comfortable with the fact that the ‘meek Hindu’ found out that his tradition is actually not at all as bad as it was made to be by the colonial power, and that in fact, it is superior.

Now when I say ‘superior’, those who are attacking Hindutva as bigoted and dangerous, may feel vindicated, saying, “Look, Hindutvadis are supremacists. They need to be stopped. They will persecute those of other religions”.

Do those people/ academics even know what Christianity and Islam claim ? These two religions do not postulate that they are superior but they assert that they are ‘only true’ and that all those who don’t accept this, will burn in hell forever.

The claim of being superior is open for enquiry and debate. Daily during shopping, we need to choose between superior and inferior things and will choose the superior quality. Yet ‘only true’ is different. It is not open for enquiry or debate. It is an absolute claim which, however, is not backed up by any evidence. It is based only on the words of the founder of the religion, which has to be believed blindly (and which was written down sometimes centuries after he allegedly said it….).

Here the academics should come in and sort out the reasons why ‘religion’ has become so intolerant and violent, and has cost millions of lives ever since ‘the only true’ religions appeared on the scene. Hindus have been the victims over a thousand years. The still are, just look to Pakistan or Bangladesh or even India. What hinders academics from looking at religions honestly ?

Hinduism or Hindutva is interested in genuine spiritual upliftment. Can this be said about the ‘only true’ religions? Yet these have one great advantage : They have many apologists whose dishonest views are inexplicably amplified by mainstream media.