General social, philosophical and religious misconceptions about Hinduism
(synopsis for a lecture by Dr. Subhash C. Sharma in
Govt. College Dharamshala, India, on March 16, 2005: Lecture news )

Being an ancient religion, Hinduism now is plagued with many wrong and false ideas about it. These probably arose over time because people did not always adhere to the proper sources of knowledge. For example,

Ignorance about the Sruti. The Srutis (originally in Sanskrit) represent the primary (basic) and important literature in Hinduism. Srutis comprise the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Upanisads (including the Bhagvad Gita). Unfortunately, the usually philosophical Sruti was often not followed by public who preferred to devote more time and effort on somewhat easy to understand Puranas and Smritis.

Over-emphasis on the Puranas and Epics. The Puranas represent a set of metaphoric and unsubstantiated stories (tales) and records about origin and history of the world, mankind and religion, etc. They are at times quite vague and are mainly intended to demonstrate some moral or idea through the use of parables. They can not be considered a proper and authentic source of information on Hinduism. The epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata) similarly relate mainly to stories involving a particular personality or clan. These also do not describe Hinduism properly and completely in terms of its philosophy and evolution etc.

Confusion regarding the misleading Smritis. Smritis (e.g. the Manusmriti) generally present a biased and misleading socio-religious view expounded by a number of ancients. Some people still tend to wrongly assume them as being an important part or source of information on Hinduism.

The above factors have led to many misconceptions about Hinduism, the important of which are listed in the following.

 

(Misconception # 1) Caste System is hereditary

It is generally thought, quite wrongly, that the caste system reflects a person’s parentage or birth in a certain family. Moreover, some people believe that the castes originated when a certain sage (named Manu) long ago divided the original chaotic society into four groups (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra) to bring some order. Furthermore, it is presumed that the people (and their descendents), divided in this manner by Manu, stuck hereditarily (through generations) to their new groups (castes) as started originally by Manu.

The above appears quite irrational. A chaotic society (especially a large one) would not easily divide itself at the insistence of a certain sage. Moreover, it would not adhere to that new social order or division for long if it were truly chaotic (i.e., as having no central authority or power).

The above indicates that the origins of the caste system lie elsewhere. A careful study of the Hindu scriptures (Sruti: Vedas and Upanisads) indicates that the division of labor in the new society (at the dawn of civilization) had taken place quite inadvertently over a long time. Moreover, the evolution in labor in the new society had led to different vocations with various names (brahmin etc.) giving rise to the now commonly known caste system. It did not involve dividing the society abruptly into four groups as Manu is wrongly thought to have done. Moreover, the caste system (jati-kram) did not reflect association with heredity or birth. Similarly, it should not be confused with the passionate feelings of casteism (jatiyat, jativad or jatipana) which certain people seem to harbor for being associated with a certain family or clan.

Note that the caste system among Hindus originated as in the following.

Rather coincidentally, at the dawn of civilization, as the people gathered and lived in clans or tribes (Visha), they collectively - irrespective of their undertakings within Visha (such as in agriculture, woodworking, trade and other vocations) - came to be known as the Vaishya (meaning - belonging to Visha).

To meet the liturgical needs of the society, the Vaishya - from among themselves - would select, on the basis of skills in elocution, the Brahmins (students or orators of the Vedas - compiled knowledge). Similarly, for administrative purposes, Vaishya with qualities of leadership would be selected as Kshatriya (sovereign, tribal chieftain, administrator of Kshatar - dominion or tribal area / town). Furthermore, a Visha (tribe) - in addition to having the Vaishyas (including Brahmins, Kshatriya, cowherders and woodworkers etc.) - also embodied people known as Shudra (meaning - not of tribe) representing all the newcomers (immigrants) to that particular tribe. They included persons from other tribes (such as the vanquished foes and the migrants) and the children born out of inter-tribal unions. Being somewhat new into that tribe and encountering unfamiliar rules, regulations and customs, a Shudra was limited in his vocational options and was generally relegated to providing service and assistance to members of the host tribe. But over time, like a modern day immigrant, he would surpass the tribal or social barriers so as to fully assimilate in that society and pursue other professions. Thus, all the responsibilities related to a Visha could be grouped into four sub-categories: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra; the duties and skills involved with each of them are indicated in the following Sections. For further details please visit the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/_caste.html

 

 

(Misconception # 2) Hinduism is not monotheistic

The above statement is quite wrong. Hinduism is a monotheistic religion with one God (Brahman) assuming many forms and names. Brahman, as Nirguna, has no attributes (is formless and unmanifested), whereas as Saguna (or Iswara) is manifested and with attributes. People use many different names for God. Consider for example the following hymns from Rig Veda.

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." RV (Book 1, Hymn 164.46)

"He in his might surveyed the floods containing productive force and generating Worship.
He is the God, and none beside him. What God shall we adore with our oblation?" RV (Book 10, Hymn 121.8)

God thus is one with many names and attributes. Note in this regard the relation between Agni, Shiva and Shakti. The symbol ling (used in Hindu and other rituals, and meaning symbol) was likely introduced long ago as a solid image to represent fire (Agni-jwala or flame) in a yajna (worship) seeking prosperity and progeny etc. Lighting a fire (including during worship) used to be a difficult and time-consuming process. Thus the solid image of Agni-jwala (also called Shiva) helped to make worshipping possible anywhere anytime. Practice of smearing the ling with ash also points to its roots in fire worship. Similarly, a number of other dark (ash-colored) deities (gods and goddesses) likely also have their origins in fire worship involving or representing Agni (which is Isvara or Brahman manifested). Shiva and Shakti are probably also the male and female aspects of Agni. Moreover, note that any misinterpretation of the ling being of phallic nature is purely accidental and due perhaps to its deity Shiva's association and importance to regeneration (life). Note also that other divine attributes are signified in the same manner as Shiv-ling for Agni. For example, it is common to use chatur-bhuj (powerful and skilled - armed) and chatur-mukh (cerebral and skilled orator) for demonstrating, respectively, the omnipotent (sarv-shaktiman) and the omniscient (sarv-gya) Brahman as Vishnu and Brahma (Ref.: http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/customs.html).

Hinduism is thus a monotheistic polymorphic religion. In other words, Hindus believe in one God or Brahman (i.e. monotheism) as having many attributes, names and forms (polymorphism).

For further details please visit the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/brahman.html

 

 

(Misconception # 3) Woman's place in Hindu society was not equal to her male counterpart

Contrary to the above, the ancient society was in fact quite considerate and respectful to those (both men and women) engaged in various vocations, and people were free to make choices or changes in their careers or skills if the opportunity existed. Vedic prayers also indicate that the women had considerable say in selecting their marriage partners, and were espoused to live in monogamous relationships while enjoying same rights as their husbands. Furthermore, in the Vedas there is little evidence of child marriages, dowry system and the practice of suttee or sati (self-immolation of a woman upon her husband's death). Similarly, there is no indication of any stigma relating to widowhood or the remarriage of a widow. There is also no religious restriction against women cremating or lighting the funeral pyre of their departed kin (Ref.: http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/cremation.html). Note also that the well-educated, scholarly and charismatic women of yore, who also participated in many philosophical debates with men, included Gargi (the daughter of Vachaknu - from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). For further details please visit the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/_caste.html (Women’s Issues)

 

 

(Misconception # 4) Manusmriti is an important social and religious Hindu text

It is a great misunderstanding to consider the Manu-smriti (or Manu's proclamation) as being an important part of the Hindu Varna-ashrama dharma. This confusion persists even in spite of the fact that Manu-smriti as a smriti (or smrti) often contradicts the sruti (or Veda) on several important points relating to the caste system and women. This article shows that, philosophically (theologically) and traditionally (practically), the Manu-smriti was never popular among the Hindus. Moreover, they never used it as a religious or social text.

Several verses on the status of women and the physicians' caste (vocation) from the Rig Veda and the Manu-smriti are listed in the Appendix here. According to the Veda, a physician's job is very important and deserving praise and brings him prestige (Rig Veda: 2/33.4, 6/50.7, 9/112.3, 10/39.5, and 10/97.6). But the Manu-smriti, contradicting this Vedic view completely, relegates the physician to a lowly position and even implies that he is not worthy of socializing with other varnas (Manu-smriti: 3/152, 3/180, 4/212, and 4/220). The same thing is observed about the women's status according to the Manu-smriti. Note that a woman according to the Veda (Rig Veda: 10/85.27) is empowered to rule her household, whereas she has no say in her affairs in the smrti (Manu-smriti: 5/147). For further details please visit the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/manu_smriti.html

 

(Misconception # 5) The word Hindu originated through mispronunciation of Sindhu

There is a tendency on the part of some scholars to indicate that the word Hindu might have been created from Sindhu (in Sanskrit meaning ocean or river, especially in the west of India) due to lack of certain letters in old (Vedic) Sanskrit. Another misconception is that when certain foreigners (Greeks, Arabs and Persians) first arrived in India, they were unable to pronounce the word Sindhu properly and their mispronunciation of Sindhu led to the creation of Hindu. Thus it is quite common to come across different stories about the origin of the name Hindu. This article discusses why Hindu could not have evolved from Sindhu and looks into other explanations for Hindu and Hindu dharma.

It is difficult to imagine that Vedic Sanskrit, due perhaps to a lack of certain letters and sounds in its alphabet, caused Sindhu to change into Hindu. Since the letters (sounds) 's' and 'dh' in Sanskrit have existed right from the outset, there would be no need to replace them, respectively, with 'h' and 'd' thus transforming Sindhu into Hindu. Moreover, because the words Sindhu and Hindu continued to coexist simultaneously even after the supposed transformation, clearly indicates that such change never occurred.

Similarly, the ancient Greeks with the letter sigma in their alphabet for 's' sound, and the ancient Arabs (and the Persians) with the letters sad and sin in theirs, would neither have the problem pronouncing Sindhu correctly nor make the mistake of calling Sindhu as Hindu.

The word Hindu probably originated to imply a person propitiated by Indu (the Vedic libation). Note, Hindu -- a compound word with Sanskrit roots (i.e. H + indu) -- indicates a liaison between H (sounding 'H' as in Hut, and implying auspiciousness or delight) and Indu or indu (meaning Vedic libation). For further details please visit the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html
------------------------------------

By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma
Email:
lamberdar@yahoo.com
Date: March 16, 2005
link to: Related topics by the author
------------------------------------

Related references:
1. "Hindu ki utpati Indu se hui: Dr. Subhash " ("Hindu originated from Indu: Dr. Subhash"), Dainik Bhaskar , Chandigarh (India), 17 March 2005, p. 12.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/hinduism_lecture.jpg

2. "General social, philosophical and religious misconceptions about Hinduism," a lecture by Dr. Subhash C. Sharma at the Regional Center of Govt. College Dharamshala, India, on March 16, 2005.
http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/misconceptions.html 1