Strangely, V. Raghunathan did not give a link to my original blog which had outraged him.

I post it here, so that the reader can come to his own conclusion if I am wrong or not:

What if an Indian had written this… Would anyone have believed?

Article by Maria Wirth

Though I have lived in India for a long time, there are still issues here that I find hard to understand. For example, why do so many educated Indians become agitated when India is referred to as a Hindu country? The majority of Indians are Hindus. India is special because of its ancient Hindu tradition. Westerners are drawn to India because of Hinduism. Why then is there this resistance by many Indians to acknowledge the Hindu roots of their country? Why do some people even give the impression that an India which valued those roots would be dangerous? Don’t they know better?

This attitude is strange for two reasons. First, those educated Indians have a problem only with “Hindu” India, but not with “Muslim” or “Christian” countries. Germany, for example, is a secular country, and only 49 percent of the population are registered with the two big Christian churches (Protestant and Catholic). Nevertheless, the country is bracketed under “Christian countries” and no one objects. Angela Merkel, the former Chancellor, had stressed the ‘Christian roots of Germany’ and had urged the population “to go back to Christian values.” In 2012 she even postponed her trip to the G-8 summit to make a public address at the Katholikentag, “Catholics Day.” Two major German political parties carry “Christian” in their name, including Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union.

Germans are not incensed that Germany is called a Christian country, though I actually would understand if they were. After all, the history of the Church is appalling. The so-called success story of Christianity depended greatly on tyranny. “Convert or die” were the options given—not only some five hundred years ago to the indigenous population in America, but also in Germany, 1,200 years ago, when Emperor Karl the Great ordered the death sentence for refusal of baptism in his newly conquered realms. This provoked his advisor Alkuin to comment: “One can force them to baptism, but how to force them to believe?”

Those times, when one’s life was in danger for dissenting with the dogmas of Christianity, are thankfully over. Today many in the West do dissent and are leaving the Church in a steady stream. They are disgusted with the unholy behavior of Church officials and they also can’t believe in the dogmas, for example that “Jesus is the only way” and that God sends all those, who don’t accept this claim, to hell.

The second reason why I can’t understand the resistance to associate India with Hinduism is that Hinduism is in a different category from the Abrahamic religions. Its history, compared to Christianity and Islam, was undoubtedly the least violent as it spread in ancient times by convincing arguments and not by force. It is not a belief-system that demands blind acceptance of dogmas and the suspension of one’s intelligence. On the contrary, Hinduism encourages using one’s intelligence to the hilt. It is an enquiry into truth, based on a refined character and intellect. It comprises a huge body of ancient literature, not only regarding dharma and philosophy, but also regarding mathematics, architecture, music, dance, science, astronomy, economics, politics, etc.

If Germany or any other Western country had this kind of literary treasure, they would be so proud and highlight its greatness on every occasion. When I discovered the Upanishads, for example, I was stunned. Here was expressed in clear terms what I intuitively had felt to be true, but could not have expressed clearly: Brahman is not partial; it is the invisible, indivisible Essence in everything. Everyone gets again and again a chance to discover the ultimate Truth and is free to choose his way back to it. Helpful hints are given but not imposed.

In my early days in India, I thought every Indian knew and valued his tradition. Slowly I realized I was wrong. The British colonial masters had been successful in not only weaning away many of the elite from their ancient tradition but even making them despise it. It helped that the British-educated class could no longer read the original Sanskrit texts and believed what the British told them. This lack of knowledge and the brainwashing by the British education may be the reason why many so-called “modern” Indians are against anything Hindu. They don’t realize the difference between Western religions that have to be believed blindly, and which discourage, if not forbid, their adherents to think on their own, and the multi-layered Hindu Dharma which gives freedom and encourages using one’s intelligence.

Many of India’s educated class do not realize that those who dream of imposing Christianity or Islam on this vast country will applaud them for denigrating Hindu Dharma, because this creates a vacuum where Western ideas can easier gain a foothold.

At the same time, many Westerners, including staunch Christians, know the value of Hindu culture and surreptitiously appropriate insights from the vast Indian knowledge system, drop the original Hindu source and present it either as their own or make it look as if these insights had already been known in the West.

As the West appropriates valuable and exclusive Hindu assets, what it leaves behind is deemed inferior. Unwittingly, these ‘modern’ Indians are helping what Rajiv Malhotra of Infinity Foundation calls the digestion of Dharma civilization into Western universalism. That which is being digested, a deer for example (analogue to Hindu Dharma), disappears whereas the tiger (analogue to Western Universalism) becomes stronger.

If only missionaries denigrated Hindu Dharma, it would not be so bad, as they clearly have an agenda which discerning Indians would detect. But sadly, Indians with Hindu names assist them because they wrongly believe Hinduism is inferior to Western religions. They belittle everything Hindu instead of getting in-depth knowledge. As a rule, they know little about their tradition except what the British have deceptively taught them, i.e., that the major features are the caste system and idol worship. They don’t realize that India would gain, not lose, if it solidly backed its profound and all-inclusive Hindu tradition.

The Dalai Lama said some time ago that, as a youth in Lhasa, he had been deeply impressed by the richness of Indian thought. “India has great potential to help the world,” he added.

Will the Westernized Indian elite realize it?

~ Maria Wirth  (freelance writer who has lived in India for the past 40 years)

PS: Since my book “Thank you India- a German woman’s journey to the wisdom of Yoga”, published in Nov 2018 with 45 chapters in 313 pages, got very good reviews, but hardly anyone knows about the book, I would like to let you know that it is available under the below link of the publisher for Rs 349. It’s also available on Amazon.in (they charge more). On amazon.com only the Kindle version is available.

https://www.garudabooks.com/thank-you-india-by-maria-wirth/

(actually i was advised by someone who likes my book and wants more people to read it, to add this para to my articles)

The post I may be politically incorrect but not wrong, Sir… first appeared on Maria Wirth.

The Pioneer newspaper had recently an editorial titled “culture wars”. It considered ‘the Kashmir files’ movie as a “part of the culture wars” and that the ‘real purpose’ of the movie was to promote the BJP agenda. The BJP agenda, so is implied, is to create a Hindu rashtra

Yet not only an Indian newspaper disparaged the Kashmir Files. The Time Magazine had a headline: “The Kashmir Files: How a new Bollywood movie marks India’s further descent into bigotry.”

It made me wonder who are the players in the “culture wars” and why a dominant Hindu culture is usually projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called ‘liberal’ media. The same media seems to endorse the Western/Christian culture. It also is friendly towards the numerous Muslim nations; even towards those which still have harsh blasphemy laws, and also towards communist China.

So why do media and leftists vehemently oppose the Hindu culture? The reason is, they claim, that minorities (read Muslims and Christians) will suffer in a Hindu nation.

This is strange reasoning, because India has an undoubtedly an excellent track record in treating minorities. In contrast, several Christian and Muslim countries have a poor track record. For example, in Muslim majority Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindus are discriminated against. Yet in India, Muslims and Christians are even favoured by law compared to the indigenous Hindu community.

Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir by Muslims

However, even in India, in Muslim majority Kashmir, Hindus were killed and driven out in 1989/90. Three options were given: “convert, leave or get killed”. To show that they meant it, gruesome murders of Hindus were committed. The perpetrators probably didn’t feel any guilt because “cleansing” the land from Kafirs is a religious mandate, for example in Quran 8.39 (“…fight them till the Deen of Allah is established completely”).

Strangely, media played down what happened in Kashmir.

The rest of India and the world soon forgot those brutally killed and the 400,000 Hindu refugees who fled from Kashmir at that time. Instead, the world hears (and mostly believes) that the Indian army brutally oppresses the Muslims in Kashmir.

“The Kashmir Files” movie reminded India what happened in 1990.

But in March 2022, India was reminded of it. “The Kashmir Files” came out which truthfully depicted what had happened. Each scene was based on documents. Of course, violence needed to be shown, but the movie didn’t overly focus on the brutalities. It also talked about the history of Kashmir, that even 800 years ago, it was the intellectual capital of India. The profound philosophy of Kashmir Saivism flourished there, until some 700 years ago Muslim rule started.

The movie was a great success. For the first time, people in India and abroad realized what great injustice was done to Kashmiri Hindus…. by Muslims. Obviously, this made the usual narrative, that the Muslims of Kashmir are brutally oppressed by the Indian state and deserve the support of the UN and world, suspect. Pakistan may have been worried.

But then came the International Film Festival in India (IFFI and the Israeli head of the jury, Nadav Lapid, became a saviour for the leftist media. Lapid stubbornly insisted on his right to make unreasonable comments. He kept calling the movie ‘vulgar propaganda’. He could have criticized the movie on many parameters. But it’s definitely not “vulgar propaganda”.

Propaganda means that the reality is twisted to influence opinions. The reality was not twisted in the movie, on the contrary. It was exemplarily truthful to reality.

So why did the IFFI jury chair call it propaganda? He read out his statement, so he had planned it. And when Vivek Agnihotri challenged him to show any one scene, which is not true, and he will quit film-making, he still stuck to his comment. He felt it demeans Muslims in general.

Political correctness over truth

Does it mean that truth cannot be shown any longer? Incidentally, Hindus never get this velvet-glove treatment. After Nirbhaya was gangraped, the whole world condemned the ‘patriarchal Hindu culture which results in rapes’.

Or remember the rape of a nun in Kolkata? The Church immediately suspected “Hindu fundamentalists” – wrongly, as it turned out. Was there an apology?

Why this unequal treatment? The reason may be that it all is part of the culture wars. When the narrative of the oppressed Muslims in Kashmir got a dent due to the movie, a remedy popped up in the form of Nadav Lapid’s comment: When the Jury of the most prestigious Indian film festival considers the Kashmir Files as vulgar propaganda, the movie all of a sudden looks bad. People would feel, they were fooled. “Oh, it was only propaganda to defame Muslims. How bad of those mean Hindus,” would be the natural reaction of people who are not well informed, and the majority of people is not well informed.

This may be the reason, why Nadav Lapid sticks to his unreasonable comments so fiercely, in spite of the Israeli ambassador telling him that he should be ashamed. He scored for the side of the dogmatic religions and communists, which are aligned against the Hindu tradition in the culture wars.

India is the last surviving ancient culture

The sides are uneven. India is the only surviving ancient culture. All others, like Incas, Mayas, Aztecs, Greeks, Egypt, Mesopotamia or China, have been destroyed either by Christianity, Islam or Communism in relatively short time.

Yet Indian culture still stands and the fight against it is on since many centuries. Big parts of Greater India have fallen, and life is painful for the few remaining Hindus there.

But why is there so much effort to get rid of the Hindu culture? Moreover, it is a culture which has contributed immensely to world civilization in many fields, which however is hardly acknowledged. Even today, after all the loot and destruction, India has still some 40 million manuscripts according to Bibek Debroy. Further, the ancient temples hold incredible mysteries and secrets.

India’s wisdom shows how to gain true freedom

The reason may be that the Vedic insights about our true nature, are a danger for the powers-that-be. They would lose the power to control people by dictating what is the truth and demanding blind belief in unverifiable dogmas, if people came to know about their divine essence.

The Hindu tradition encourages a genuine enquiry into truth. Hints are given, for example in the Mahavakyas of the Upanishads. “Ayam Atma Brahma”, means the consciousness in you (Atman) is the same as in the one great Brahman, similarly as the water in a wave is the same as the water in the ocean. The wave is not the ocean, but the essence is the same in all waves and all are encompassed by the ocean, and when the wave loses its form, nothing of substance is lost.

What makes more sense?  The Indian view of all being one with the all-pervading pure awareness, Brahman, which is, through sadhana, accessible? Or blind belief in what one person has said about God in heaven, who decides on the basis of only one life, whether we deserve eternal heaven or hell?

The Church got already some taste, what happens, when people know too much about Hindu Dharma:

When in the 18^th century, German philosophers read translations of the Upanishads, they praised Vedic knowledge to the sky, and compared it negatively with their own religious tradition. Ever since, the Church lost power, even though it staunchly maligns Hinduism. I for example heard already in primary school about “untouchables” in Hinduism. Yet I came to know about the horrific Jewish holocaust by our own German people only in my teens.

The opposition to the Hindu side is fierce. Hindus are maliciously called all kinds of names – extremists, fascists, rapists, even terrorists, or cow-piss drinkers, often by persons who have no idea what Hindu Dharma is about.

Yet, Hindus have become meanwhile more awake and realized, that their Dharma, which was in a subtle way portrayed as inferior to the Abrahamic religions, is actually the better option for humanity and the world. And many Hindus have now become vocal and proud about it. This is not appreciated by those who want to eliminate the last surviving ancient tradition.

The dogmatic side has killed millions over the centuries in the process to eradicate ancient cultures and each other. Its foot soldiers don’t realise that they are only pawns in a bigger game about control of humanity, and that it is in their own interest, when Hindu Dharma not only survives, but flourishes. Hindu Dharma is truly inclusive and considers the whole world as one family, because we all come from the same divine Source: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

By Maria Wirth

PS: Since my book “Thank you India- a German woman’s journey to the wisdom of Yoga” got very good reviews, but hardly anyone knows about the book, I would like to let you know that it is available under the below link of the publisher for Rs 349. It’s also available on Amazon.in (they charge more). On amazon.com only the Kindle version is available.

https://www.garudabooks.com/thank-you-india-by-maria-wirth/

(actually i was advised by someone who likes my book and wants more people to read it, to add this para to my articles)

The post Are Attacks on Hindus part of culture wars? first appeared on Maria Wirth.

The Puranas fascinate me, ever since I started many months ago to study the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana (1700 pages in English) and I am glad that more and more books come out on the Puranas.  It seems that slowly the realization dawns that the Puranas are an incredible treasure house of knowledge in many fields – knowledge that is so vast and a lot of it so ‘far out’ that it actually couldn’t be obtained by mere humans stationed on earth. Strangely the impression was created (by whom?) that the Puranas are only mythological stories, about fights between gods and demons and about the life of Avatars. And they are mainly meant to promote a dharmic, righteous life and devotion for the Divine in common people through stories, as Vedic philosophy is too complex for them. At least that was the impression I got in my early time in India.

It is often not known, that all the 18 main Puranas start with the creation of the cosmos, a fact, that should make us sit up and reflect. Who could have recorded it? Who was present? Or is it just all plain imagination, like the fairytale that God created the world in 6 days some 6000 years ago, which has been disproven by now, as science estimates that the world is 4,5 billion years old.

The author puts the spotlight on the rational aspects or interpretations of the Puranic stories of creation. He wants to show that those stories are not fairytales but amazingly in tune with the modern scientific framework in regard to the topics he selected. The topics are: the lifecycle of the sun, the moon, the history and geography of the earth, and the different lokas above and below our earth. Further, the descent of Ganga, the story about the Great Flood in different cultures and the Puranic universe in general with its huge timelines have also chapters in the book with many quotes from different Puranas. Those quotes make the book a worthy read in itself.

The author gives first a detailed, informative summary of the insights of modern science regarding these topics, for example from postulated or observed astronomical phenomena and events, and then compares them with the stories in the Puranas and his interpretation.

Not surprisingly, in many instances, the scientific and Puranic view are close to each other, for example the 5 stages of the life cycle of the sun or that water came from outer space, or that the moon rises each day next to another star (nakshatra), etc. In other instances, the interpretation of the author can be open for debate, for example his view that the North Pole could be seen as Mount Meru. 

The author expresses his surprise how such old texts, like the Puranas, could know what modern science knows. However, it may be more surprising how science could discover this knowledge. The book starts with a quote from the Brahmanda Purana:

“Hence listen to this summary. Narayana creates the world. It is on that occasion of creation when he makes this entire Purana. It does not remain at the time of annihilation.”

We live in a time where “divine creation” is looked down upon as unscientific. We take it for granted that “of course” science knows that our earth is part of the solar system, and that we know the other planets, and can trace their position. Google says that the “five planets were known since ancient times”. And it is made to look as if it is not big deal that the ancients knew about the planets. “They can be seen with the naked eye, is given as explanation.”

But how to know that certain lights in the night sky full of lights are planets of our sun and relatively close by? While other lights are like our sun and far, far away? Even if we watch the sky for thousands of years, we cannot come to this conclusion, can we? Only when Indian knowledge contained in the Puranas, Surya Siddhanta, etc., reached Europe, together with math and tables to calculate their position and the constellations in the sky, “science” suddenly took off and models about the cosmos appeared. At first these models were hampered by the Church. It tried to suppress them to make its religious claims more acceptable. Only 400 years ago, in 1600 CE Giordano Bruno was still burnt at the stake by the Church because he did not recant heretic (Indian) ideas about the universe. But ultimately, the Church had to give in.

Swaminathan credits science with a lot of worthwhile insights, but he also points out that the scientific claims are so far only models. For example the theory that the earth was in the beginning a fire ball got in recent time competition from another theory which suspects that the earth was in temperate water, after probes from 4 billion year old stones indicated this.

Incidentally, the Puranas accommodate both these claims. They say that at the end of Brahmas day, the earth first becomes an inferno due to the sun becoming a giant and then, when the sun diminishes and cools, the heat turns into a deluge of water which submerges everything during the night of Brahma. Most Indians are familiar with the story of Vishnu incarnating as a boar to bring out the earth which was lying submerged in water at the start of our present cycle of creation, which lasts for a day of Brahma, or 4,32 billion years.

The book is definitely an interesting read. However, in the process of making the Puranic narrative “scientific” the universe becomes lifeless, whereas the quotes from the Puranas project a universe full of life and divine entities. While the Puranas give Brahma the credit for creation, science turns it into dark, lifeless chance. Would the creation make any sense if there is no awareness inherent in it? Science still sees the awareness in human beings only as a chance by-product of the material brain. Is it possible that this chance consciousness of humans on earth and maybe on some other planets would be the only knower and enjoyer of such an unimaginably vast, mysterious cosmos while everything else is dead matter?

I wished, the author had incorporated the imperative role of awareness and even the possible personification of celestial bodies into the narrative. Most Indians don’t see for example Surya Bhagawan as merely lifeless matter but endowed with awareness and identity. Unfortunately, it requires courage to express such views, as so-called scientists may call one mad. Yet Hindus could have this courage. Their ancient texts are the basis for modern science. In all likelihood, it won’t take long and Darwin’s theory and the view that the Big Bang happened by chance will go out of fashion. So why not challenge it already now and stand by the ancient knowledge before the West changes its view?

Regarding the divine origin of the Puranas, the author preferred to let the Puranas speak for themselves. Yet to make it acceptable for “scientific minded” people, he went with the view that they are “2000 years old”.

The last chapter is dedicated to the life and immense contribution of Maharishi Vyasa who not only compiled and simplified the Vedas, but also simplified the Puranas, which were at his time already “old”. The author quotes from the Matsya Purana that the original 100 crore Slokas were condensed by Vyasa into four lakh Slokas. Even now in Devaloka they have the original number.

What I was missing in the book was a causal connection between the Puranas and the scientific models. The similarities are in all likelihood not by chance but the Puranas would have been inspiration for the modern scientific models.

Incidentally, the Jesuits got the Puranas translated in the 17^th century by Brahmins in Kerala and then Jesuits were suddenly at the cutting edge of science, of course only in those fields which the Church allowed. Western universities valued Indian knowledge greatly in the 18^th and 19^th century. When Tuebingen University in Germany for example received the Srimad Bhagavata and 10 other ancient Indian texts from a missionary in 1839, the Dean praised them as an ornament for the university and added ruefully that this treasure however is small in comparison to the treasure which the India House in London possesses. So it can be safely assumed that a lot of modern science is based on the knowledge of the huge body of Puranas.

Some of it may have been misunderstood, too. For example, it is intriguing that, though till recently the earth was claimed to be 6000 years old, suddenly the age was expanded to a huge 4,5 billion years. Incidentally, the Puranas claim that the lifespan of the earth is 4,32 billion years, which is very close to the estimate. However, the Puranic calendar claims, that of those 4,32 billion years, by now around 2 billion years have passed in our present cycle of creation or about half a day of Brahma. Is it possible that some western scientist took inspiration from the Puranas but mixed up the lifespan with the present age?

I hope and wish that this book by Ganesh Swaminathan inspires more Indians to take interest in and study the Puranas.

by Maria Wirth

The post Book Review: From the Beginning of Time first appeared on Maria Wirth.

If someone commits an act of terror, he must be motivated. Yet this motivation is ignored, because in most terror cases in our times, terror is connected with Islam, and if someone hints at this fact, he is promptly accused of Islamophobia. Yet Christianity also used terror in earlier times.

In fact Christianity was the first to make the unsubstantiated claim that God has given the full truth only to the Church and everyone must believe it at the cost of their lives. And Islam followed with a similar claim. Terrorism in the name of God started right then, by forcing “those who are wrong” into the “right” faith or killing them. Millions of people were killed – from America to India and beyond.

In primary school I learnt that Islam expanded through “fire and sword”. It was a meaningless phrase for me as a child. Only later, it dawned that it involved tremendous cruelty. This cruelty was not restricted to Islam. The Christian ‘expansion’ and the Inquisition were equally brutal. Indians experienced it firsthand in Goa.

In the 1970s, at University, we debated why religion has caused so much bloodshed. The debate was on ‘why’ not on ‘if’.

In 2000, a change in this approach became apparent. When Pope John Paul II finally acknowledged the cruelty of the Inquisition, and asked forgiveness from God, he did not blame the Church but ‘sons and daughters of the Church’ who committed ‘mistakes’. He tried to absolve the religion and laid the blame on ‘misguided’ followers.

This same pattern is followed today regarding Islam. When Jihadis attack innocent citizens shouting ‘Allah ho Akbar’, politicians, Muslim representatives and media declare that those terror acts have nothing to do with Islam but are the handiwork of misguided or deranged individuals.

The reaction is so predictable: “The attack is shocking, revulsive, a cowardly act, but we stand united. We won’t let them win”, etc…

Then in major cities (provided the attack happened in the West, as lives lost in Africa or Asia don’t seem to matter so much) a landmark building is lit up in the colours of the country where the attack happened, candles are lit…

We have gone through these motions far too often and there is something fake about it. The pain of those affected is real. Others may be grateful that it had not hit them – at least not this time. Yet most politicians are not honest.

True, the attacks are shocking and revulsive, but they are not cowardly acts. The Jihadi kills because he is convinced that it is his duty to kill Kafirs – and he is even ready to die in doing what he feels is right. This shows courage. Almost all terrorists are young. It is not normal, nor easy to risk one’s life by killing others, unless he is absolutely convinced that the benefit is greater than the cost.

And what does he expect as benefit?

Probably he was taught already as a kid or has read it later on the internet that killing Kafirs pleases Allah. By doing so, he can make his life truly worthwhile, and he will be richly rewarded: he will have a better status in paradise than those who did not kill Kafirs.

Now here is where we Kafirs are either cowards or ignorant. We don’t dare to point to passages in the Quran, which support his expectation, for example Q 4.95 and ask what it means if not what is written there.

“Those believers who stay at home – having no physical disability – are not equal to those who make Jihad in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their persons. Allah has granted a higher rank to those who make Jihad with their wealth and their persons than to those who stay at home. Though Allah has promised a good reward for all, Allah has prepared a much richer reward for those who make Jihad for Him than for those who stay at home. They have special higher ranks, forgiveness and mercy. Allah is forgiving, merciful.” (Q4. 95-96).

Imagine a young, hot-headed Muslim reads this – would he not be inspired to make his life “worthwhile”? Even more so, if he has phantasies of becoming a hero with a gun?  He probably considers dying as a small price for greater glory. As Sultan Shahin once pointed out, children in madrasas, who often are treated badly, sing songs with the refrain “zindagi shuru hoti hai qubr mein” (life starts in the grave).

Curiously, old, sick Muslims don’t seem to be interested in the “higher status in paradise” when it would make much more sense for them. Does it mean, they are more mature and know that the Quran must not be taken literally?

Is it not their and our duty, to save not only the potential victims of future terror attacks but also the young Muslims who are ready to throw away their lives for a promise which won’t be kept? After all, Christianity also claims that only those who are baptized can enter heaven. A comment to one of my tweets recently read: “I don’t understand why those religions portray their God like underworld dons. ‘If you leave our gang, if you are not a follower of our God, then you will be fried in hot oil in hell’”…

Can a merciful Supreme Being behave like a jilted lover who gives hell to those who love him under another name?

We need to ask probing questions. Those must include the question: why in an area where Muslims have become the majority, the number of minorities keeps dwindling till they become almost non-existent?

Yes, it is difficult to believe that terror attacks have anything to do with religion. Religion is understood to be something good. It is meant to connect us with the Highest and to make us better human beings. We want to believe that the cause for terror attacks is something else. ‘All religions worship the same one God. No religion can condone killing others’, most of us will say. But is it true?

We need to find out. If we don’t dare to do this, we are cowards.

Let’s imagine we discover that there are indeed passages in the Islamic texts that condone terror against infidels, what will be the next step?

Then we need to bring in common sense and debate on the meaning of life and enquire into the absolute truth. India has the knowledge and must take the lead in this, because the Christian West is handicapped though many Christians, except those who earn their livelihood from the Church, meanwhile don’t divide humanity any longer into ‘us versus the rest’. Yet both the Muslim and Christian clergy does. Instead, another dividing line must be drawn: It is the line between humanity and inhumanity.

Terror and hatred for other human beings is inhumanity. How do we know? Because we have a conscience which tells us what is right and what is wrong. Right is dharmic and wrong is adharmic. Hinduism is based on Dharma and that’s why Hindus can never cause terror in the name of the one Brahman or their many Devas. Our conscience is the voice of Dharma which guides us through life. If we listen to it, we realize that the whole of humanity is one family. The life in all of us comes from the same, most powerful yet invisible, source.

Religions which demand that we ignore our conscience and instead believe blindly what they tell us (two of them exist), have an agenda. They want sheep who don’t think for themselves and who can be used for their own purpose.

Terrorists are not cowards, but they are not smart. They got the purpose of life wrong and they won’t be rewarded for harming and killing other human beings.

By Maria Wirth

The post Terror in the name of God and Allah first appeared on Maria Wirth.

Contrary to the general perception in India, secular is not the opposite of communal. Communal as such is not objectionable either. It means ‘pertaining to a community’. In Germany, elections to local bodies are called “communal elections” (Kommunalwahlen).

Secular means worldly and is opposite to ‘religious’. Now ‘religious’ in this context refers to Christianity, i.e. to a well-organized, dogmatic religion that claims that it is the sole keeper of the Truth, which all must believe blindly.

And what is this revealed truth? In short: the human being is born in sin, which dates back to Adam and Eve. But fortunately, some 2000 years ago, God had mercy on humanity and sent his only son Jesus Christ to earth to redeem us by dying for our sins on the cross, then rising from the dead and going back to his father up in heaven. However to be able to get the benefit of Jesus’ sacrifice, one must be baptized and become a member of the Church, otherwise one will be singled out for eternal hell on Judgment Day.

Understandably, such claims did not appeal to those who used their brains, but for many centuries they had to keep quiet or risk their lives.  The reason was that for long the Church was intertwined with the state, and  harsh laws made sure that people did not question the ‘revealed truth’. Heresy was punished with torture and death. Even in faraway Goa, after Francis Xavier called the Inquisition to this colony, unspeakable brutality was committed against Indians. In many Muslim countries till today, leaving Islam is punishable by death, as both these religions insist on only one belief, the one which is in their holy book.

Significantly, those centuries, when Church and State were intertwined, when the clergy prospered and the faithful sheep suffered are called the dark ages. And the time when the Church was forced to loosen its grip, is called the age of enlightenment, which started only some 350 years ago.

Incidentally, India had a hand in it. When Indian knowledge reached Europe, it fostered greatly scientific progress, and this played a crucial role in curbing the influence of the Church.

Now the idea that reason, and not blind belief in a ‘revealed truth’, should guide society, took root in Europe and this lead to the demand for separation between State and Church. Such separation is called secularism.

Today, most western democracies are ‘secular’, i.e. the Church cannot push her agenda through state power, though most western democracies still grant Christianity preferential treatment. For example in Germany, the Constitution guarantees that the Christian doctrine is taught in government schools. Nevertheless, the present situation is a huge improvement over the dark ages.

In India, however, the situation was different. Here, the dominant faith of the Indian people never demanded blind belief in an unreasonable doctrine. Their faith was based on insights of the Rishis and on reason, intuition and direct experience and involved a long tradition over many thousands of years. It expressed itself in a multitude of ways. Plurality is the hallmark. It allows the one Brahman, the cause for the universe, be worshipped in the forms of many deities who are ultimately all one with Brahman. Their faith was about trust and reverence for the One Source of all life. It was about doing the right thing at the right time according to one’s conscience. It was about The Golden Rule: not to do to others what one does not want to be done to oneself. It was about having noble thoughts. It was about how to live life in an ideal way. It was about Satya and Dharma.

However, this open atmosphere changed when Islam and Christianity entered India. Indians, who good-naturedly considered the whole world as family, were despised, ridiculed and even killed in big numbers only because they were ‘Hindus’ (which is basically a geographical term). Indians did not realise that dogmatic religions were very different from their own, ancient Dharma. For the first time they were confronted with merciless killing in the name of God o Allah.

During Muslim rule Hindus had to lie low for fear of their lives, and during British rule they were ridiculed by missionaries, and cut off from their tradition with the help of ‘education’ policies. Naturally, this took a toll on their self-esteem. Till today, this low self-esteem is evident, especially in the English educated class. Nevertheless, it is a great achievement and testimony of the fighting spirit of Indians that Hindu Dharma survived for so many centuries, whereas the west succumbed completely to Christianity and over 50 countries to Islam in a short span of time.

Coming back to secularism. Though Hindu Dharma survived and never dictated terms to the state, ‘secular’ was added to the Constitution of India in 1976. There might have been a reason, as since Independence, several non-secular decisions had been taken. For example, Muslim and Christian representatives had pushed for special civil laws and other benefits and got them.

However, after adding ‘secular’, the situation did not improve. In fact the government seemed almost eager to benefit specifically the dogmatic religions (which secularism is meant to counter) and occasionally had to be restrained in its eagerness by the courts.

This is inexplicable.  Why would ‘secular’ be added and then not acted upon? And the strangest thing: ‘secular’ got a new, specific Indian meaning. It means today: fostering those two big religions which have no respect for Hindus and whose dogmas condemn all of them to eternal hell – a fact that most Hindus simply laugh off or don’t even know.

It is a sad irony. Can you imagine the Jews honouring the Germans with preferential treatment instead of seeking compensation for the millions of Jews killed? Yet Islam and Christianity that have gravely harmed Indians over centuries got preferential treatment by the Indian state, and their own beneficial dharma that has no other home except the Indian subcontinent, is egged out. And to top it, this is called ‘secular’!

It seems Hindus have not yet realized that the dogmatic religions really want to put the mind of all humans into a strait jacket. They say it openly: “We alone have the full truth. All must accept it.”

Media and politicians did their best to muddy the water. They called parties that represent a religious group, ‘secular’, instead of ‘religious’. When the state gave in to demands made by Christianity and Islam, it was (falsely of course) called ‘secular’.

WHY did the government do this?

It is surely wise for the state to ignore demands by the dogmatic religions which insist on blind belief in unverifiable, unreasonable and divisive dogmas, and which foster only their own members.

Yet this advice does not apply to Dharma.

It would be a disaster if the state would also ignore Dharma and become adharmic.

Dharma is the backbone of a harmonious society. It needs to flourish, needs to be taught to children. And of course politicians, too, need to follow dharma, need to follow their innate knowledge about what is the right thing to do. When this happens, India has a great chance to become again the famed golden bird and the Guru of the world.

By Maria Wirth

The post Putting secularism into perspective first appeared on Maria Wirth.

Quora removed so far 6 replies and each times threatens that I will be banned from Quora if I continue to not be nice and respectful. It seems telling the truth is not nice and respectful.

Here is the reply to:

Is India becoming the most hated country?

Oh no, India can never become the most hated country – never mind how much media and missionaries and other vested interests try to portray it as such.

There are too many people in the world who know India, who know her profound philosophy, who know how much she has contributed to civilization, more than any other country in this world, who know how kind and open-minded her people are, how they live and let live and this includes millions of cows, monkeys, stray dogs, even tigers, leopards, elephants, snakes, etc… in spite of a huge population on little space. Even love & worship them as nature’s gift.

Too many people know how colourful and joyful the atmosphere is during the many festivals, which have mostly a religious nature; they know how alive the country is and how generously India shares her knowledge like Yoga or Ayurveda; how amazing her culture is – music, dance, sculpture, architecture. And also, there are too many people who know Indians who live abroad and know that they are among the best immigrants possible.

But yes, attempts are on to portray India in very poor light, and ‘rapes in India’ and ‘atrocities against minorities and lower castes’ are preferred news on foreign TV channels, like on German dw (Deutsche Welle), when the same channel will not broadcast rapes that happen in Germany.

A poll in England recently showed that Indians there are seen positively (+25), while Pakistanis are seen negatively (-4). The amazing thing is that Indians and Pakistanis are basically the same people. The only difference is that some Indians converted to Islam during the long Muslim rule of their country and at the time of Independence, they demanded their own country as they didn’t want to live together with Hindus. And while hardly any Hindus are left in Pakistan, India allowed Muslims, who did not want to move to Pakistan, stay and their number has increased significantly.

So maybe there is one condition: India can never become the most hated country as long as it remains majority Hindu.

By Maria Wirth

The post Again one of my replies removed by Quora. Why? first appeared on Maria Wirth.

Now this list falls clearly under propagating falsehood in the name of an agenda. There is no other country where members of other religions are as safe as in India. Hindus always gave shelter to those who were persecuted in their homelands. Jews gratefully acknowledged that India is the one country where they were never persecuted. Syrian Christians under their leader Thomas of Cana (Thomas the Apostle did not come to India) were given refuge in the 4^th century. Parsis came in the 10^th century to escape the Muslim invaders in Persia. And in 1959, some 100,000 Tibetan Buddhist refugees fled over high Himalayan mountains and found shelter in India – only 12 years after the British had left India – a country that was one of the richest on earth when they seized power and one of the poorest, when they left.

Yet now the British Foreign Secretary tweeted that nobody should be persecuted for their faith and obviously endorsed the ranking of India in the “extreme level” category at number 10 out of 50 countries.

Of course, nobody should be persecuted for their faith. Yet an important issue is overlooked. What is the reason for persecution? Who is likely to persecute others for their faith?

Naturally it must be those who believe in an ideology which considers the faith of those others as wrong and unacceptable. There exist mainly three such ideologies – communism, Christianity and Islam, and all three are known for not only persecuting, but even killing dissenting voices in the millions.

Communism wants to stamp out religion as such as it considers them as a disease.

Christianity wants to obliterate all other faiths except itself, and Islam has the same goal. It considers all others as false and unacceptable to their god. Both won’t tolerate other faiths and therefore are likely to persecute them.

So the first countries on the list may indeed deserve their rank and indeed persecute Christians. North Korea due to its communism, and then right up to rank 17, all are Muslim majority countries with one exception. On rank number 10 is India with a Hindu majority.

How did India get in there? There seems to be an agenda to obfuscate and muddle the issue. Hinduism does not condemn other faiths as wrong and does not persecute others. It never has. It has the most liberal world view possible. Everyone has the right to seek his own truth, and his owns connection to the source of his being.

So why is India ranked together with countries where indeed Christians are persecuted? Surely the compilers of the list must have reason to include India, won’t they? Was there not a young American missionary killed by tribals in the Andaman Islands recently? And is this not brutal persecution?

Yes, it is true that he was killed. The young American was naïve. He knew that the Sentinelese tribe was fully cut off from civilization and hostile, and nobody was allowed to go there. Yet he went nevertheless, feeling he was called to bring the Gospel to them, as if they were in need of it. His superiors should have warned him, yet they rather encouraged a possible ‘martyrdom’.

Yet this definitely cannot be called persecution of Christians. It was a defense against an unwanted intruder by tribals, who had earlier had bad experiences under the British colonial rule. It also cannot be called persecution of Christians, when villagers occasionally chased away missionaries who had come to convert. These villagers have every right to protest against their gods being called devils and being pestered to leave their ancient tradition. Did the Christian missionaries not cross decent human behavior by not respecting others’ views, if those views are not harmful to anyone? Unfortunately, Christian missionaries are notorious for crossing decent human behavior and for putting out blatant fake news.

An example:

Swiss friends were alarmed by a forward they had got on 23. November 2018 and asked me if there was truth in it. It was in German and I translate it here in full:

SAD NEWS: Please pray! Urgent issue for prayer. Pray for the Church in India. Last night 20 churches were burnt down. And tonight more than 200 churches in the Olisabang provice are meant to be destroyed. They want to kill 200 missionaries in the next 24 hours. All Christians hide in villages… Pray for them and send this message to all Christians whom you know the world over. Pray to God that He has mercy for our brothers and sisters in India. When you receive this message, pass it on urgently to other people. Please pray for the 22 Christian missionary families who have been condemned to be executed. Please pass on this message as fast as you can, so that many will pray!!!

With love

Joyce Meyer

A Google search shows that this message is circulating since 2010 and is a hoax. Even the province doesn’t exist.

Would a persecuted religious group dare to spread such blatant, outrageous lies? Would it dare to have a detailed plan like the Joshua Project about how to convert maximum number of Hindus? So who is actually persecuting whom?

Yet instead of condemning the devious agenda of the missionaries, the world accuses India of persecuting Christians.

Why?

The west knows that they cannot bully Islamic countries. But in India, which is a high target for conversion, there are enough western oriented Indians, who will happily toe its line and falsely accuse Hindus of persecuting Christians. In this way, Hindus and India get a bad image in the eyes of the world and Christians receive support and compassion.

Mainstream media has tremendous power to shape opinions. Churches have tremendous financial and political clout. Both obviously cooperate to portray Hindus as intolerant and hateful of other religions – absolutely contrary to facts. There is a third power that wants India to get a bad image the world over, at least as bad as its own image is. It is Pakistan, which is at rank number 5 in the list.

Intriguingly, not a single European or American country is among the 50 top countries where Christians are persecuted. But was there not a shooting in a church in USA? Have Christian refugees for example in Germany not been attacked by Muslim migrants? Does this not count as persecution? And are those French or German or Spanish or English citizens, who are randomly stabbed with a knife or blown up in a terror attack, not targeted for their faith? For not being Muslim?

We need to be clear. Those who are persecuted FOR their faith, are always persecuted by members of a different faith which is rigid and dogmatic and considers those other views as wrong – so wrong that they are ready to even cheat or kill to wipe this wrong faith out. Islam is one such rigid faith, but also Christianity.

So, in a tweet, I suggested to the British foreign secretary a slight change in his comment. Instead of “Nobody should be persecuted FOR his faith” I suggested “Nobody should be persecuted BY a faith”.

Will he understand?

By Maria Wirth

The post Nobody should be persecuted BY a faith. first appeared on Maria Wirth.

I will restrict my answer to the three religions with the most followers.

Hinduism (the term is used today to cover many different strands) is based on the Vedas. One could call the Vedas the most ancient, original ‘revelation’, because the Rishis are not the authors of the Vedas. Due to their Tapas (austerities), they ‘saw’ (Sanskrit: drishtih = see) the mantras in cosmic awareness through the veil that prevents ordinary eyes from seeing them.

The Vedas were the first to claim that there is one great Brahman (Supreme Being) as the base of this varied manifestation, in whom all is contained. Nothing exists apart from Brahman. Brahman is not personal. It is infinite, eternal, blissful awareness. Our Atman (Self or I) is one with it.

Ages later, only some 2000 years ago, Christianity was ‘founded’ and claimed, that God has ‘revealed’ the full truth only to Jesus Christ and it is contained in the Bible.

A few centuries later, Islam was ‘founded’ and claimed, that Allah has ‘revealed the full truth only to Prophet Mohamed and it is contained in the Quran.

Both religions have copied the concept of one Supreme Being, but distorted the original, Vedic view in an unacceptable way, which has led to terrible misery over the centuries.

The distortion is this: The Supreme wants all humans to accept the revelation through Jesus, respectively through Mohamed. Those who do not accept the only true religion (of which two exist…) will be damned for all eternity to hellfire by God/ Allah personally on Judgment Day.

For long, the Church was intertwined with the state and punished those who disagreed with the doctrine most cruelly through state laws. Even in Goa, the Inquisition was most brutal under the Portuguese. However, in the age of enlightenment (which coincides with the time when the Vedic knowledge reached Europe and influenced the elite there) the Church had to give up interfering with the now ‘secular’ state.

Ever since, it does not have the power to punish heretics any longer, and it has lost and is still losing many members, because they are now allowed to get out of the Church and many realised that a lot of the doctrine does not make sense.

Islam does not need intertwining with the state, because it is one with the state wherever Muslims are in the majority. So the brutal punishment of heretics still happens in our times. Under Sharia Law leaving Islam means death sentence, and Kafirs are called the worst of creatures in the Quran itself. The believers are exhorted to fight the unbelievers till the whole world is for Allah. No guessing that this is the cause for a lot of misery.

Amazingly, these two religions are allowed to preach those distortions under the right to religious freedom even today. Especially children are vulnerable and believe what adults tell them.

Compare this with the view of Hinduism that the Supreme permeates all. Whoever believes it – and it is even more than belief, because it can be experienced – will have inner strength, because he knows that Divinity is in him, and further he will be kind to others, because he knows that Divinity is also in them.

Clearly, Hinduism is on a higher level.

If only more Christians and Muslims would reflect whether, what they learnt in childhood can possibly be true.

I think it was Voltaire who said: God gave me intelligence. I think He wants me to use it…

For those who have time for 5000 words, this explains, why Hindu Dharma is higher than religion and even higher than science: https://mariawirth.com/science-and-religion/

By Maria Wirth

If you like my writing, consider to check out my recent book from 2025, titled “Why Hindu Dharma is under attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left” https://www.amazon.in/dp/8119670655 it’s available also as Kindle and abroad.

my earlier (2018) book “Thank you India- a German woman’s journey to the wisdom of Yoga” is about India from a personal angle. it is also available on amazon, PadhegaIndia and under
www.garudabooks.com/thank-you-india-by-maria-wirth/

The post Why is Hinduism higher than all religions? first appeared on Maria Wirth.

I learnt this already in primary school. The Indian caste system with Brahmins as villains was part of the curriculum in Bavarian schools in the early 1960s, when we children had no idea where or what India is, and it still is part of the syllabus today: some time ago I asked three young Germans in Rishikesh what they associate with Hinduism. Their prompt reply was, “caste system”.  Surely, they also had learnt that it was most inhuman. In all likelihood, all over the world school children are taught about the ‘inhuman’ caste system. Why?

There is likely an agenda behind it.

Yes, the caste system exists, and untouchables, too. And it exists all over the world. Curiously, ‘caste’ is Portuguese for class. It is not even an Indian term. The ancient Vedas mention four varnas – Brahmins, Kshatryas, Vaishyas and Sudras, which form the body of society, like the head, arms, thighs and feet form the body of a human being. It is a beautiful analogy which implies that all parts are important. True, the head will be given more respect, but will you ignore your feet? Not everyone is made for intellectual work, fortunately, because a society without farmers, traders, workers won’t be possible. All have their role to play. And in future lives, there are likely to be role reversals.

Varna was not hereditary originally. It depended on one’s predominant guna (quality of character) and one’s profession. The job of Brahmins was specifically to memorise the Vedas and preserve them absolute correctly for future generation. They had to have predominately Satwa (pure) guna and had to stick to many more rules for purity than any other caste.

Brahmins were the guardians of the purity of the Vedas. So it is understandable that they would not touch those who for example remove the dead bodies of animals or clean the sewers, though a society needs people, who do these jobs, too. In the west, people also wouldn’t shake hands with them. But no issue is made out of it.

Due to their satwa guna, Brahmins were least likely to be abusive to other groups in society. Usually it is the group which considers itself socially just above another group, which looks down on those lower. This trait is there in all societies, but it is true, that in India, unfortunately over time, the four varnas were inherited by birth. There are today many Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Sudras, who do not follow their dharma any longer and therefore should not consider themselves as belonging to their inherited varna.

But why is the structure of the society in India constantly decried, when nobody accuses for example the nobility, the highest ‘caste’ in the west, that it does not mingle with workers and won’t live in their neighbourhood?

Why is nobody upset that the British allowed only ‘whites’ into the club of Madikeri town in Karnataka and probably all over the country, as an old Indian gentleman told me? If I remember right, he said that the sign at the club read, “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.

Why is nobody upset that the agriculture policy of the British Colonialists starved over 25 MILLION Indians to death? 25 million men, women and children slowly dying because they had nothing to eat in a country that was one of the richest before the British took over… There are terrible pictures on the net of Indians only being skin and bones, barely alive.

Why is nobody upset that the British, after slavery was abolished, sent indented labour from India all over the world in cramped boats, where a big number died during the journey already (and were spared the torture in the sugarcane estates)?

Why nobody talks about what the Muslim invasions did to Hindus and especially to Brahmins? How cruel they were? How many Hindus were killed or made slaves? How many Hindu women committed mass suicide by jumping into fire so that they won’t fall into the hands of the Muslim troops?

Due to ISIS, we can well imagine what happened then, yet the Leftists and even ‘respectable’ British Parliamentarians are not concerned with all this. They are concerned with the ‘most inhuman caste system’ of India. It can be safely assumed that the colonial masters tried to drive a wedge between the castes by ‘fixing’ the former fluidity of varnas in their census from 1871 onwards. And today, their democratic successors, though without political power in India, try to drive a wedge with the help of manipulative media and even parliamentary legislation in their own country.

My point is: what Brahmins did by segregating from others or even snubbing others is negligible in comparison what Christian colonialists and Muslim invaders did.

So why are the so-called atrocities of the caste-system so hyped? The reason may well be to divert the attention from those who actually should feel guilty what they did and still do to India. It’s not the Brahmins. Many of them suffer today, mainly due to reservation and, though poor in many cases, by being excluded from benefits which are given to religious minorities or lower castes.

But this is not the only reason why the caste system and Brahmins are being bashed worldwide. Another important agenda is to shame Brahmins, to make them feel guilty about their forefathers and to make them reluctant to follow their original Dharma of learning and teaching the Vedas. The goal is to make Vedic knowledge disappear in India, because it poses a danger for Christianity and Islam. It can easily challenge their so called “revealed truths”. Vedic knowledge makes sense and is therefore the greatest obstacles for Christianity and Islam to expand over the whole world.

Unfortunately, a lot of Vedic texts are already lost. The former Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram, Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, says in his book “The Vedas” that out of 1180 Shakas, into which Veda Vyasa divided the 4 Vedas some 5000 years ago, only eight are still in use. (Question: would a search in England, Germany and other countries rediscover some of this treasure?)

It is about time to stop this unfair Brahmin bashing and stop portraying the Indian caste system as the worst that has ever befallen humanity. It sounds so fake, especially, when ISIS gets neutral treatment by just mentioning facts, like I read in a news item, “ISIL burns 19 Yazidi women to death in iron cages because they refused to have sex with fighters” without any emotional colour or condemnation.

Some time ago, I saw an old Brahmin couple in a temple in south India. They had dignity, but were very thin. When Prasad was distributed, they were in the queue before me. Later I saw that they joined the queue again…. It was in all likelihood due to poverty.

Brahmins don’t need to feel guilty about their forefathers. They can be proud of them, because it is only thanks to them that India is the only country that has preserved its precious, ancient wisdom and tradition at least partly.

Yet others should indeed feel guilty, but those others are brazen and won’t. They rather vitiate the atmosphere with unjustified hatred for Hinduism and anti-Brahmanism.

By Maria Wirth

PS: If you like my writing, check out my books:
“Why Hindu Dharma is under attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left”, published 2025
https://www.amazon.in/dp/8119670655 also Kindle version

Thank you India – a German woman’s journey to the wisdom of yoga” 2018, from a personal angle.
it’s also on Amazon, but cheaper from the publisher:
https://garudalife.in/thank-you-india-by-maria-wirth/ (for Rs 349 instead of Rs 499)

The post The bashing of Brahmins and India’s caste-system has an agenda first appeared on Maria Wirth.

A few months after I had met this American, Julia Roberts openly declared that she is a practising Hindu and I wondered, whether those Americans now also have more courage to stand by their conviction.

In India, the English educated elite seem to have taken a cue from the west, as they do so often. They also seem to feel that Buddhism is intellectual and Hinduism is suspect. Several years ago, Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk from Vietnam, who lives in France since decades, came to India to give workshops. I signed up and was amazed that many of the elite in town were present – people who would never listen to a Hindu Swami. The most reputed school in town, and maybe in the whole of India, hosted the event. A big hotel catered food. The hall was packed on the first evening. The Kendra Vidyalayas, schools run by the central government, had dispatched two teachers each to attend. Thich Nhat Tanh had come with a group of monks and nuns, dressed in dark, long robes who chanted before his lecture standing behind him.  It surely was impressive.

What the Buddhist monk  said was good advice, but common knowledge and more attuned to western societies, like “If you have misunderstandings with your father, clear them before he dies.”

The attendance thinned out over the 3 days of the workshop, in spite of the good food, yet the teachers of the Kendrya Vidyalayas were stuck. I talked to some of them and they were of the view that any Hindu Swami could do the same, if not a better job. They had a point, as Thich Nhat Tanh  made a few blunders, like when he mentioned, “A French philosopher said that there is no death”. This French philosopher probably got his knowledge from the Bhagavad Gita…

Recently a question was asked on Quora, why not more Indians are aware of Buddhism, though Buddha was born in India.

I replied that Hinduism has many sages and Buddha was one of them. Many of those sages could have started an ‘–ism’ in their names. Luckily they did not. It is doubtful whether Buddha had approved of Buddh-ism. It was Emperor Ashoka a few hundred years after Buddha, who was intent to make people follow what Buddha had preached.

A nice story is usually taught about Ashoka, that he was moved by the terrible violence in a war and then followed Buddha’s non-violent teaching. It may not be fully true, as it is hardly possible to push a whole people to change its ancient ways of worshipping the Divine without violence. And there are indications that he forced his conviction on his countrymen. They, however, fell back to their old ways some centuries later.

Adi Shankara did his bit on the intellectual and spiritual level to restore trust in the Vedas by challenging Buddhist scholars for debates and coming out of them convincingly.

A physical, deadly blow was given by Muslim invaders under Khilji around 1200 AD, who ransacked the Nalanda University which housed thousands of Buddhist monks from all over Asia. Monks were killed and the huge library was burned. It is said that it burned for three months. Imagine the wealth of knowledge that went up in flames, at a time, when the west just started to establish universities.

Hinduism is a new term, introduced by the British, and does not do justice to the great variety of views, of philosophies, of gods, of rituals and to the huge body of knowledge that is contained in the Vedas, which includes ‘worldly’ subjects like medicine, economy, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, arts and so on. In fact, Hindus don’t see a dichotomy between worldly and sacred. All is a manifestation of the one great, invisible Brahman or Ishwara.

Hindus don’t feel the need to pledge that they only follow one particular human being. They are free to choose what suits them best to connect with the Divine, which the Vedas claim is one’s innermost essence. No need to identify with only one strand of the many possible helpful strands, which have emerged over many millennia.

An example from my own experience: In my early years in India some 35 years ago, most of the foreigners I met identified as Buddhists. Most of them also felt that Buddhism was superior to Hinduism. They were attending teachings by their root lama. I met several of those lamas. Once, a French girl wanted me to join her and take an initiation from a high Tibetan lama. It was clear that if one wanted to take the initiation, one had to become Buddhist by ‘taking refuge’. So I told her that I don’t want to limit myself and keep my freedom. She felt I was missing a great chance and a few days later, she said, she had talked to the lama and I could take part without taking refuge. I did. Next time, I visited another lama and his first words were: “Oh Maria, you are now a Buddhist.” My spontaneous reaction: “No, I am not…”

In 1985, I had a chance together with two German friends to spend over an hour with HH the Dalai Lama. I mentioned that I had met several Hindu sages and was greatly impressed by Indian philosophy. The Dalai Lama asked whether I think that the concept of Atman in Hinduism makes any difference to Buddhism.  I was sure that it does not and quoted from the Upanishads “Ayam Atma Brahman” (This Atman is Brahman). I was however not sure, whether the Dalai Lama saw it also like this.

A few weeks later, I met Sakia Trizin, the head of the Sakya sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and asked him, “What is the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism?” Immediately, he replied: “The concept of Atman”.

Buddhist monks have to study plenty of Buddhist texts, and I guess, to mark a basically non-existent border to Hinduism, they learn that Atman signifies a kind of separate entity. Some philosophers may see it like this, but Advaita Vedanta does not.

Hindus respect Buddha. Buddha is even seen as an avatar. He is one of their own. Hindus do not feel the need for a demarcation to other views. They are the least dogmatic of all and have the most profound philosophy as a solid basis for the manifold ways of connecting with the all-pervading Divinity for which (though formless and nameless) they have varied names.

By Maria Wirth

The post Buddha was a Hindu first appeared on Maria Wirth.