Review of "Being Hindu - Old Faith, New World and You" by Hindol Sengupta

There are two ways this review could be written 

1. Review by a software tester whose job is to find bugs, mercilessly
2. Trying to appear as a nuanced, seasoned reviewer with balanced view, impersonal dissection of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I will go by the first option, even if I appear to be a cynic of the highest order and Hindol refuses to speak with me, should the occasion arrive.

All of us are asleep. Some of us wake up. Start asking questions. Hindol is awake. He is asking questions. He may not have answers to everything but he is trying to find the answers. 

An awake person starts the journey. Hindol has started the journey. 

An awake person may ask a question – who am I/What is the purpose of my/the life etc.? That is one line of questioning. Another line of questioning could be – what is my religion, where does it stack up and compare with other religions? I read so much about caste system and superstitions of Hinduism. I hear about lofty philosophical ideas of Hinduism, an open, inquiring, very "personal" religion. Where does Hinduism actually stand between these two extremes? Hindol’s questions belong to the latter category of questions. The book is not truly about the first line of thinking, about existential questions. Maybe we will wait for another book from Hindol!

First impression

The book isn’t about what I had expected it to. The title of the book is "Being Hindu - Old Faith, New World and You” Based on the title I had thought that the book will deal with how is Hinduism being portrayed about, how it is being demonised today by a section of people who can’t seem to find anything goo about it. Maybe it was because of a review I read on Indiafacts.org (http://indiafacts.org/book-review-being-hindu-old-faith-new-world-and-you/) 

The book is definitely worth reading once especially for those in search of an identity or some clarifications about Hinduism in reaction to hinduism/hindutva bashing seen/read/heard somewhere. 

Will the book make you an expert on Hinduism, its myriad ways? No because the book doesn’t go there at all. It talks of Vedant but mostly of Advait Vedant (without mentioning Advait actually. The index too doesn’t list Advait). It doesn’t talk of the Shaivas, the Vaishnavas, the Shakts and so on. It doesn’t talk about relation of Jainsim, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. It doesn’t talk of Vedic rituals and their relevance today in an emphatic way. 

This is a book not about YOU but about Hindol. The title could have been "Being Hindu - Old Faith, New World and I.” I am not saying that in a negative sense. This book describes the journey the author has undertaken (and I hope continues) to discover Hinduism for himself and describes his current understanding and where he stands. As you go on a journey with him, you can slowly replace that I with You. Your journey, if you have made one; your questions, if you have asked some; maybe different from Hindol’s but you will find some common ground there.

I personally would have liked the book to be either deeper, dealing with more complex questions of existence and how Hinduism answers these or about most challenging questions it faces and what can Hindus do in the modern context to counter those challenges. I have some issues with the book that I will deal with later in this review.

Detailed review

The book’s preface is interesting to read, paves way for rest of the book so if you are not in the habit of reading prefaces, please ditch that habit for this book. 

Of various chapters of the book I found the first chapter “How to write about Hindus” most interesting. Some portion of the Indiafacts.org review deals with this. 

Second chapter deals with questions like Who is a Hindu. It deals with Geographical identity and interestingly brings in Diana Eck. It touches upon genetics, aryan-dravidian divide, aryan invasion theory, aryan migration theory etc. It just touches upon them and there are tons of resources out there, if you are interested. As additional and very deep reading, I recommend you read Koenraad Elst’s “Who is a Hindu” http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ if this topic is of deep interest to you. There are references at the end of the book and many of them are a must read. He mentions Michel Danino, one my my favorite authors. I wish the chapter had also touched upon OIT (Out of India) theory as well. 

Third chapter deals with "What makes a Hindu” and this is a short chapter talking about difference in the concept of Original sin and how Hinduism thinks about human beings. The chapter clearly has Vivekanand’s words as the guiding spirit. 

Fourth chapter deals with the concept of “Who is the one true God.” The chapter pre-supposes a god and differentiates between Abrahamic and Hindu conception. It is in this chapter that Hinduism is equated with Advait Vedanta and doesn’t really look into the questions of other systems such as Dvaita, VishistaDvaita etc. I am reminded of a conversation I had with Koenraad Elst once. I was explaining my concept of Hinduism and how it moves from Deistic faith and multitudes of Gods to same God being represented as different gods (but still dualistic) to non-dualistic/Advait approach and Brahman as the highest goal and he asked “Says who? The Dvaitvadis say that their’s is the final stage.” This came as a jolt to me and made me think again about my assumptions and presuppositions. The chapter nicely juxtaposes creation in Bible (Genesis) and in Rigveda (Nasadiya Sukta) and highlights the thought process difference between the two. He also talks about his initiation/diksha and how he has stopped meditating on the mantra given to him (and I hope he starts it again, if he hopes to find deeper answers).

Fifth chapter deals with the question of God and Science and if there is a conflict between the two, especially from a Hindu’s point of view. It deals with some of the scientific innovations done in India. It does make a mistake of equating internal light with electricity-based light, even if metaphorically but I have more to say on that later. I wish there were more references here. I can suggest one to you.http://cbseacademic.in/publication_sqps.html. These are CBSE Books. Look for class XI and XII books on Knowledge Traditions and Practices of India (KTPI). These are really nice books with lot of information and without the leftist negative bias.

I wish this topic were dealt with in a more detailed manner. Especially how science fits into the Para and Apara vidhya framework of India and why science is not anti-God as far as Hinduism is concerned and why Hinduism is not anti-science. Also, unfortunately, the chapter asks questions like “How is it that inheritors of one of the world’s greatest traditions of scientific thought cannot comprehend, may of them, that it is torturous to get children married.” There are many ways to answer the question Hindol asks -

1. The inheritors of this tradition are no longer aware of the tradition and more importantly they themselves don’t have a scientific temperament.
2. Maybe there were circumstances that led to child marriages? What were those? What was Hindu society’s position on child marriage? Law is helping alleviate this problem.
3. What makes child marriage torturous? Has Hindol himself experienced it? Usually when you get a child married, the “Gauna” doesn’t happen till the girl attains certain age say 17-18 years. Gauna is the ceremony when the girl leaves parent’s house and goes to live with the husband and in-laws.
4. What makes it OK to have boyfriend/girlfriends at the age of 10-12? Same thing makes it OK 

Before you start shouting at me for supporting child marriage I would like to say please think. This is to my position. These are some ways to answer or counter-question.  It is also instructive to see what Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati Svami, sage of Kanci, has to say about child marriage. Read chapter 6 “why child marriage,” of the book Hindu Dharma – The universal way of life published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan. He speaks favourably about child marriage!

Sixth chapter is about how books portray God talks about various Yogas/paths – Gyan, Bhakti, Raj and Karma Yoga. It talks of Arthashastra and so on. I think the title of the chapter is a bit misleading and also the books mentioned here are a smattering of Upanishads, Ramayan and Mahabharat etc. It also talks about reforms in other religions and quotes favorably Mehdi Hasan! In my eyes it is one of the sins of this book especially because Hasan is kind of opposing call for reforms. Call for reforms in any religion is no “knee-jerk” reaction and only status-quoists can make that statement. The chapter also makes mistake of equating social customs with reform in hindu religion. Sati, for example, was a social practice amongst certain sections of society. To the best of my knowledge it is not part of “Dharma.” Ram Mohan Roy, Ishvara Chand Vidyasagar, Debendra Nath Tagore etc. were social reformers at best and not really in a category of people “on-the-path” It is instructive to read what Shri RamKrishna Paramhans had to say about Ishwarchand Vidyasagar and the Tagores.  You can read Shri Ramkrishna Vachnamrit to know more about it. I don’t have page number references right now. Kamasutra also gets a mention but how is God portrayed doesn’t get answered in a comprehensive way.

Seventh chapter is about vegetarianism, whether Hindus have to be vegetarian and again unfortunately the arguments don’t go deep enough. It has some wrong argumentation as well for example, advocacy of non-veg for hard working people and he quotes Vivekanand for the same. I personally believe that Vivekanand was mistaken here (I know I am making a big statement against the favorite disciple of my beloved Shri RamKrishna but Vivekanad was known to make such mistakes. He once told Shri Ramkrishna that he had seen a Chataka drinking pond water. The Chataka later tirned out to be a bat!). If somebody is interested in this debate on this chapter, we can take that up later. Disclosure – I am a Jain ;-)

Eights chapter is about History and a good read even if incomplete. I understand that the topic is complex and people have written epics on these so I am fine with the length of the chapter. Interested people should look up works by Talageri, Meenakshi Jain, Koenraad, Michel, Sanjeev Sanyal, Kak, Romila Thapar, Jha, Habib and so on. Basically read arguments on both the sides and form your own opinion. I had not expected this chapter to go into dalit question but there are some factoids there as well.

I will leave remaining chapters unreviewed and I will leave you to discover it for yourself.

Now comes my software tester’s attitude to find bugs -

My grouse with the book is on two main counts – 

The first grouse is the reliance on west for understanding or at least explaining. Explaining the context, details and meanings using western references and sources. The book falls prey to the same charge that the book (and countless others) make - “some Western experts use Western idioms, ideologies and theories to interpret Indian theology and philosophy…” (Page 10). From Alice in the wonderland to Diana Eck, Fritjof Kapra to Ayan Rand and countless others. This is seen in some of the ideas as well such as the preference for the orderly, the linear. The temples are cacophonous and unclean (and they are in many cases), the loudspeakers are blaring and so on. No, this is not the problem. The problem is trying to find peace in a temple and because of the rush, because of the commerce he is unable to find it. He forgets what he writes in his book – peace is internal. It comes from being “centred.” 

Another example is page XXVII, preface where he says that “Progress can’t transpire unless Hindus first understand who they are, where they came from and where they are going.” What is this progress that he talks about? Material progress? Why can’t it be had without understanding who I was? What is meant by WHO I WAS? I am what I am. As a “normal” Hindu I don’t have self-doubt about my Hinduism. I am a Hindu. Period. I may care about the question of God, of meaning of life or even how to reach Godhood but mostly I don’t ask myself about what my religion was and has become. I don’t ask who is a Hindu. I am Hindu. The problem is usually with people who have doubt in their mind about the religion because of negative publicity in media, movies and so on. When there is clash of the “western” ideals and ideas (religion, liberalism, communism and all myriad forms of isms) people begin to doubt. Most Hindus don’t doubt. Not that it is necessarily a good thing.

I don’t think progress in material terms has anything to do with my past and who I am today. 

Second and a bigger grouse is that there is nothing about the practical aspects of Hinduism. No, I don’t mean practical from a  worldly point of view. I mean from a point of view of realizing Brahman. From point of view of outcome of meditation – vision of “God” and the experiences that come with it. Yes, it is possible that he doesn’t have it. It is also possible that he doesn’t want to share that part of his life. However, if you quote Vivekanand and Shri Ramkrishna’s conversation about seeing God and RamKrishna replying in positive, you have to talk about “seeing God” as the main part of the “practical” spirituality. He does allude to it at a place or two for example, on Page 108 when he quotes Vivekanand “If there is a god we must see him.” Coming from RK Mission, I had expected a bit of that. Hinduism is not the only “religion” that can enable one to “see God” but definitely it is the only one in my experience that values experience over belief. Brahman, quantam mechanics, unity and all are good but if they fail to make you “realize Brahman” then Hinduism is as good or bad as any other religion. 
Writing about spiritual experiences is a dangerous thing because it is not “scientific.” Spiritual experiences and visions would make you seem superstitious after all there is no objective evidence of these that can be verified by anybody. (To those who are interested in Spiritual experiences I recommend the following books - 1. Yoga of the saints by Dr. V. H. Date 2. Pathway to God in Kannada/Marathi/Hindi literature (3 books) by Prof. R. D. Ranade and 3. Dasbodha (original is in Marathi. Translations are available) by Samarth Sri Ramdas, Shivaji's Guru.)

So the book comes out as too much intellectual and not really spiritual and this is the failing of the book, in my opinion. No, not every Hindu needs to have spiritual experience and not every author who writes on Hinduism needs to write about spirituality. As I said earlier I had more expectations with the author coming with a history with RK mission. This is MY HOPE independent of what Hindol has to say on the topic. 

A minor grouse is use of Gandhi (a lot of it) and a lot of Indian thinkers/social reformers who do not fall in the category of “realized” people. Gandhi hardly understood Hinduism, Ahimsa and had very little spiritual experiences. For his limited range of spiritual experiences you can read Prof. R. D. Ranade’s 1956 book “Conception of spiritual life in Mahatma Gandhi and Hindi Saints.” The books name was changed by somebody to make it appear as if Gandhi was a saint. The new title of the book is "Spiritual Awakening in Gandhi and Other Indian Saints” and has been published by Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan in 2003. One  can see the sleight of hand in the name change of the book.

HIndol refers to Shri Ramkrishna as one of the LAST great seers of Hinduism (Page XIX, Preface). I wonder what makes him classify Shri Ramkrishna as one of the LAST. India has never been bereft of great seers. I can name a few – Shri Ramana Maharishi, Shri Aurobindo, Shri Vijay Shanti Surishwar (Died 1942, A Jain monk whose name was taken with reverences in even in Hindu Mathas), Prof. R. D. Ranade who died in 1956, Dr. V. H. Date, Neem Karori Baba and so on. There are many who are alive today. Just because we do not know their names doesn’t make them any lesser. 

Some minor issues

1. Hindol mentioned Sufism as something coming out of India. His exact words are “It is Hinduism that assimilated both those faiths in the country – In Islam even celebrating a uniquely liberal and tolerant sub-sect called sufism with ideas similar to Hinduism… none of which were or are part of puritanical Islam of Arabia.” Well Sufism was, at one point of time, in Arabia and neighbourhood. There are questions about origin of Sufism but the fact of the matter is that in the middle-east including Arabia Sufism was there. Please see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101380.html which talks about resurgence of Sufism in KSA. The article says “…Sufism had previously been predominant in Hejaz, the western region of Saudi Arabia, which includes Muhammad's birthplace, Mecca; Medina, where he is buried; and the Red Sea port city of Jiddah. Muslims prayed often at shrines where the prophet's daughter Fatima, his wife Khadija and his companions were buried. Mawlids were public affairs with entire cities decked out in lights, and parades and festivities commemorating the prophet's birthday and his ascension to Jerusalem.”
2. Hindol says “You can only fully comprehend the absolute when through spiritual evolution you are one with it. (If I already was, of course, I wouldn’t really be writing this book you see.)” I have an issue with it. Realized (One with the Brahman/Absolute) souls also need to do their Karma. Shankar wouldn’t have written books otherwise nor Ramdas. Kabir wouldn’t have written neither, nor Tulsidas. Aurobindo would have remained silent and Ranade (R. D. Ranade and not M. G. Ranade) would not have taught. 
3. Page 123, chapter seven on vegetarianism - “ - Food that produces heat in the body - “ while referring to meat. What is this heat? I don’t think “heat" is a reason to avoid meat. Tamsik is the classification which could have been used. The argumentation for not doing cow-slaughter is very weak too. 
4. Gautam Buddha as the influencer for vegetarianism is ok. He was one of those. Were Brahmins of his age eating meat? I don’t think so but I haven’t researched that topic. Mahaveer was probably as or more influential towards vegetarianism than Buddha. Most people overlook that aspect. Jainism and consequently Ahimsa is an older religion than Buddhism. Parshva, twenty third Tirthankar of Jains, was some 200 years before Mahavir who as senior to Gautam Buddha. Well, I digress here. Krishna’s times are supposed to be before Buddha unless you question Krishna’s existence itself. Krishan was a protector of cow. Hindol could have included arguments from and reference of http://agniveer.com/no-beef-in-vedas/. If he hasn’t read that, I recommend he does.
5. Hindol talks about dirty and commercialized temples. I too have been to some of the same temples and I agree that these could be managed better. First of all, most temples are managed by government, the Devasthan Vibhag. So the government should be majorly held responsible for the condition of the temples and not ordinary Hindus who have no say in these matters. I am not arguing against Hindo’s observation. He is right. My argument with him is on the line “…rather than practices that provide some solace for the soul.” Well, the solace IS in the soul and not the outside environment. If you don’t find solace in a dirty temple then probably it is because you are stuck with the externals. Having said that, I agree that may of our temples need to get freed from clutches of greed and litter. I am reminded of the story of Christ who drove away the money changers and vendors. http://biblehub.com/matthew/21-12.htm. I would also request him to visit some of the clean temples as well – Vaishno Devi, Tirupati, Jain temples (all of them and especially recommended for those in Delhi – Jain Dadabari in Maharouli). 

There are more things to be discussed but I might have spent more time writing the review than reading the book so I will close this review here and request you to read it on your own and form your own opinion about the book.