Understanding Hinduism through a comparison with the DEI: An education-based analogy

The interested reader can either read this article by scrolling-down on the text version (see below), OR by clicking on the link given (see above), to access, download and print a PDF version already uploaded on LinkedIn.

The article has a Preface (sub-sectioned), an Abstract, and four Sections (two of which are sub-sectioned). There is also Afterword (for optional reading).

PREFACE (AND DISCLAIMERS)

The concept of a ‘pakad’. Classical music in India consists of arrangements of musical notes into patterns called ragas. A raga is something that can be sung, or played, in extremely complex ways. And yet, every raga also has a simple description that goes by the name of a ‘pakad’, which lists the notes of the raga, and the manner in which they are sung, or played. The pakad thus functions as a grasp, or handle, upon the raga; it is a guide, a primer, and a key to a raga, since it helps the listener catch (or ‘get’) the raga and relate it to other ragas without necessarily going into the raga’s entire complexity of manifestation.

A ‘pakad’ for Hinduism. This article is an attempt to propose a ‘pakad’ for Hinduism. Like a raga in Indian classical music, Hinduism is an ancient religion that manifests in diverse and complex ways. During modern times, very few who are curious about Hinduism find the time, or the patience, to indulge in an exploration of this religion, because life has become fast-paced and too demanding of our time and attention. Thus, Hinduism is often today as bewildering to those who have been born into it, as to those who were born outside of it. Even so, life sometimes serves up situations that precipitate one’s attention. Amongst such situations, I would count the recent and sudden elevation of a self-described ‘practising Hindu’ to the prime ministership of the United Kingdom [a country that helped in the birth of protestant Christianity fifteen centuries ago and which was led, only eight decades ago, by a prime minister who referred to Hinduism as ‘a beastly religion’, and to Hindus as people who breed like rabbits]. Given this background, any British citizen of Christian faith could well be expected to be curious about a prime minister who wears his Hinduism upon his sleeves. Such a person could benefit from a pakad.

A pakad could help all who are ‘curious’. I would imagine that a pakad of Hinduism, such as the one that I present in this article, could allow all ‘curious’ people in the western world (and elsewhere) to arrive at a basic grasp of Hinduism, in terms of where Hinduism comes from, what it is like, why it is the way it is, why it doesn’t change with the times too much, and also why it has survived for millenia. In addition to being useful to those lacking prior knowledge of Hinduism, the pakad that I present in this article could also be useful to those possessing a passing acquaintance with the religion (having been born into it, on the Indian subcontinent or elsewhere) which feels insufficient to them. Amongst potential beneficiaries, I would count nephews and nieces growing up abroad, the children of friends and acquaintances, and also my own children. Although my children grew up on the Indian subcontinent, various demands on their time and attention, including our family’s strong interest in a sub-section of Hinduism called Santmat [which has significant overlaps with sub-sections of Sikhism, Sufi Islam, Gnostic Christianity, Greco-Roman traditions, and the way of the Tao] did end up precluding their exploration of much else that also constitutes Hinduism. Therefore, it is with many possible types of readers in mind that I now present this pakad of Hinduism.

Common questions about Hinduism. So, what is Hinduism really like? What is a ‘practicing Hindu’, as opposed to a ‘non-practising Hindu’? Why do over a billion people call themselves Hindus, or allow themselves to be called Hindus? Do all Hindus have identical understandings of Hinduism? Or do different Hindus have different understandings that are mutually-compatible but not necessarily coincident? Is every Hindu’s understanding determined by the extent to which he/she has personally explored the religion, or is there a core set of precepts that are periodically issued, or enforced, by a central authority (as in some other religions)? Does Hinduism hold its subscribers to particular beliefs, or do practitioners have the freedom to interpret and internalize the beliefs that suit them? What explains Hinduism’s longevity, and its survival over millennia? How is it that a religion that repeatedly split to give rise to Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism, during previous millennia, and which opened its doors to practitioners of Zoroastrianism or Judaism (in times of their persecution in other lands), and engaged with evangelical religions such as Islam and Christianity, still around? What do Hindus worship? Do they worship ‘God’ in physical form (e.g., idols, buildings, trees, animals, or humans); God in non-physical form (e.g., various forces of nature, spirits, angels, archangels, and other beings of light); God without form; God as pure mind; God as pure consciousness; none of the above; or all of the above? Why does Hinduism feel (to outsiders and insiders alike) like it is so difficult to pin down, and define? Many such questions abound. This article does not answer any of these questions directly. However, every reader is likely to find an answer of his/her own to each of the above questions, through the extrapolation of what I say in this article, or through the contemplation of its implications. Hinduism is an umbrella religion for a purpose. It has many interesting insights, in its folds, for a world that is increasingly engaging in a war with itself.

A brief abstract of the pakad. In the main, I discuss Hinduism in this article by analogizing it to various systems of education, in general, and one system of education, in particular, which is called the DEI. Over the space of the next thirty-odd pages, I encourage readers to hold different religions to be akin to different educational institutions that teach subjects, at different levels, to students of varying levels of age and maturity. I try to explain why such stages are necessary. I then introduce Hinduism as an institution that hosts students of the widest conceivable range of ages, stages and maturity; all the way from kindergarteners to doctoral scholars, causing it to be some kind of a superset of other educational institutions (in essence; if not in detail, quality, or intensity), and only in a figurative manner of speaking. I then tie things up by providing a personal view about what Hinduism is, what it is like, and why it probably happens to be the way it is. I do this by providing a glimpse of the variety that exists in the religion, and a glimpse of how this variety fulfils the need of human beings to evolve through stages. The main thing to remember while reading this article is that the reader can abandon reading it at any point after reading this preface, because the same things are mentioned in ever-widening spirals of detail and variety.

A brief description of what Hinduism is like. For those who may not proceed beyond this preface, here is what I try and say. Hinduism has a natural affinity towards every other religion, or philosophy, on the planet. Yet Hinduism is like none other. In my opinion, this is mainly because other religions have chosen to define what each stands for, whereas Hinduism has not explicitly chosen to do so (perhaps because it stands for, and supports, almost everything that exists in the domain of religion). Hinduism has thus allowed itself to become a broad umbrella under which individuals of all conceivable tendencies, inclinations, and beliefs, can gather and co-mingle. I propose that there is a very good rationale, or purpose, underlying this aspect of Hinduism, and I also propose that this is something that explains Hinduism’s diversity of comingling beliefs and longevity. The Indian subcontinent, with its temperate climate, has sustained human life for a long, long time. Seers and sages who have lived here during times past would appear to have managed to find the time, freedom, and opportunity, to both (a) develop ‘religion’ to its extreme, in every possible direction, and also (b) understand (and disseminate the understanding, to rulers and such) that, in the long run, it is always best to allow everyone to learn their own lessons from doing their own thing, over many physical incarnations of a single mind, through an unfolding that occurs in stages, maintaining only the slightest of controls and administrative oversight (rather than a heavy ‘ruling’ hand), since haste makes waste in respect of everything that cannot be hurried up (such as an individual’s evolution). Through this article, I show how such aspects, and stages, of evolution are necessary for the making of progress in education, as well as in religion, by an individual human being. I also show why allowances must be made for such stages to exist, and be gone through in a systematic manner, if subscribers to a religion are not to run away with agendas that are based on their own specific understanding derived from a particular stage of their evolution. Hinduism appears to me to be a religion that long ago learned the lesson that all forced coercion of human thought, or emotion, into small boxes (however lofty, elevated, or apparently-true), only creates reactions within those who are not yet ready to accept the truth of a single reality. This is because such a truth or reality appears to them, through their own experience of life, to manifest both physically, and mentally, in a differentiated and graded fashion that is filled with multiplicity, and not at all like a single truth. Therefore, while on the one hand, Hinduism offers to those who have finished learning all the lessons that there are to learn, the knowledge, techniques, understanding, and realization that are necessary to stop incarnating (into mental/physical form), and to merge with a single reality that is the source of all things (like the loftiest aspects of all other religions), on the other hand, Hinduism also offers to those who still have many lessons to learn, the opportunity to go on reincarnating, and to go on evolving through stages, gradually learning to focus upon a single truth through a process of convergence that begins with the contemplation of the many (rather than the One), each in accordance with his/her individual inclinations shaped by a destiny that manifests as apparent free will. This is why there is very little advertisement in the Hindu tradition. It is believed that people naturally gravitate to the theory and practice of their inclination, based on their stage of progress in understanding the basics of religion. This is really the gist of it.

Where my understanding comes from. Before I sign off from this section, I would like to say that my own views about religion and spirituality were shaped initially by my having been born into a ‘Hindu’ family with leanings towards religion and spirituality (involving, especially, a paternal grandmother and a mother who were naturally of a devotional nature; a father who oscillated between a devoted form of theism and a fond and tolerant atheism of different grades; and a brother who would tell me that only music, with its melodies, lyrics and rhythms, makes him feel devotional). My views were shaped thereafter by interactions with the wider family, and through the reading of numerous texts, interpretations and expositions by luminaries of different persuasions, and faiths. Following that, and in the largest imaginable measure, my views were shaped (over decades) by what living spiritual masters have had to say about religion and spirituality, including and most especially, my own Guru and Preceptor, Sardar Shri Gurinder Singh Dhillon, together with our common friend, Monsieur Souleymane Sarr, and Shri Ishwar Puri (whose lectures I have heard, and with whom I have corresponded, but whom I never got to meet before he left his mortal coils). If you like what you read here, all credit goes to my Guru and to these (and other) living spiritual masters and mystics. If you don’t like what you read here, or disagree with anything that I have to say, all blame must accrue to my own lack of understanding and/or to my lack of ability to convey whatever I think I have understood.

ABSTRACT

Discussions about religion are like a walk upon a frozen lake. One can never predict when, or where, the ice will break, to drown all discussants. Therefore, to avoid the drama that surrounds discussions about religion, I discuss religion obliquely in this article, by discussing education instead.

I have divided this article into four sections:

(1) In the first section, I talk almost exclusively about education; about different stages of education; about different types of educational institutions that service students at different stages of their education; and about how education leads to the progressive expansion of mental perspectives. At the end of this section, I propose that all of these things are as true of the different stages of an individual’s growth through the exploration of religion, and spirituality, as they tend to be true of the different stages of an individual’s growth through the exploration of different stages, and fields, in education.

(2) In the second section, I talk about how the study of any subject ends up expanding a student’s perspectives in such a manner that certain stages appear to be at loggerheads with other stages, forcing each student to necessarily have to reconcile older perspectives with newer ones. I use examples from the study of science to suggest that advanced perspectives only appear to be at loggerheads with older perspectives until they get to be reconciled, and until they come to be held simultaneously, within a mind that remains sufficiently open (rather than within a mind that prefers to adhere to a single perspective, or preference). When a student understands, with help from those who have previously explored the same sequence of expansions, that various conflicting perspectives can indeed be reconciled through acceptance of the possibility that each perspective applies to a different level of contemplation, then all conflicts become dissolved. This happens if, and when, the mind makes the effort to access various levels of contemplation, either in series (by switching one perspective ‘off’ and another ‘on’) or in parallel (by becoming capable of simultaneously holding all perspectives within the same mind). Once again, in this respect, education and religion are compared.

(3) In the third section, I narrow the discussion down to an analogy between Hinduism and something called the Dayalbagh Educational Institute (or DEI), which is an example of a broad-spectrum educational institution that happens to be broad in respect of both subjects that are taught, and the levels at which they are taught. The DEI is located in the city of Agra, near Delhi. It hosts students from every imaginable stage of education upon the same large campus. This ensures that all students remain in full view of each other, in states of occasional engagement, under the same benevolent (presumably light-handed) administrative umbrella. I use this analogy to suggest that Hinduism, like the DEI, is an ‘umbrella’ that includes the broadest imaginable spectrum of stages of evolution of an individual’s relationship with existence. In other words, I suggest that Hinduism concomitantly services the progressive expansion of perspectives in over a billion itinerant individuals who may be at different stages of understanding, but who progress through the same (or similar) sequence(s) of stages. I also suggest that Hinduism services such expansion without excessive conflict, since every individual happens to remain in full, fond, and tolerant view of every other. I compare this situation to kindergarteners and doctoral students who share the grounds of the same campus, and enjoy the same sunshine, breeze and occasional showers, at the DEI, where doctoral students carry fond memories of once having been kindergarteners, and kindergarteners carry fond hopes of one day growing to become doctoral students. In such a system, everyone understands that all others are equal in substance, and potential, like the members of a family, happening to be differentiated only by time/ inherent qualities/ opportunities received/ preferences exercised/ and the vagaries of individual destiny. This is why, Hinduism believes that the entirety of existence is one family that has arisen from one source, which is summarized in the well-known saying on the Indian subcontinent, ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’.

(4) In the fourth section, I defend the analogy between the DEI and Hinduism by providing glimpses into Hinduism’s typically-staged evolution of perspectives. This section also proposes that an outsider’s view of Hinduism depends upon the Hindus of one’s acquaintance, OR upon the books that one has read, OR upon the particular stages of evolution that the bulk of a contemporary Hindu population is perceived to be passing through, at some point in its history. Very rarely is there a full and frontal engagement of any outsider with Hinduism in its full complexity. Hinduism thus causes confusion in those who are looking for something simpler, and remains difficult to bind down and define, using the simpler codes that other religions employ. However, Hinduism becomes accessible when one first understands the attitude with which it is necessary to approach it. As a lifelong student and teacher, this is why I have resorted to the use of analogy (because I find analogies to be useful tools with which to simplify complex concepts, and because any other approach could get mired down in controversy and arguments) to create a pakad for Hinduism.

SECTION 1: THE GRADED NATURE OF EDUCATION ?

One way to view a religion is to view it as one would (view) any educational system, or institution. Below, I develop such a view in a manner akin to the development of an image of reasonable resolution, or clarity, through the gradual addition of pixels to a grainy (low-resolution) image. I request the reader to read each sub-section, reflect upon it, and then replace the word ‘education’ with the word ‘religion’, to see whether the text still continues to make sense. This exercise is likely to help the reader access the remaining sections that will follow.

Education involves multiple stages, and places, of learning. A child learns the very first things that it learns from its parents, siblings and other relatives. Thereafter the child transitions, in short order, through further stages of instruction, such as: (1) a play-school for toddlers, (2) a Nursery, Montessori, or Kindergarten, (3) a Primary School, (4) a Middle School, (5) a Secondary or High School, (6) a Senior School, and (7) a Community college. Once the child has transitioned through these stages (and if the desire for further studies remains within the child, or its parents), the child moves into (and through) University, undertaking studies that lead to (8) a Bachelors’ degree, (9) a Masters’ degree, (10) a Doctoral degree, and (11) post-doctoral work and study. At each stage, the child’s knowledge and understanding grow in proportion with the stage and degree of the child’s engagement with what is being taught, discussed or explored. There is no shortcut.

Education involves multiple stages of growth, and maturation. During its passage through the above stages of education, the child also simultaneously transitions through different stages of life. These influence, and are influenced by, the child’s passage through different stages of education. Such stages of life include infancy, toddler-hood, childhood, puberty, adolescence and youth. The transition through such stages is accompanied by profound changes in body, and mind, and in the ability to imbibe and handle different concepts. Thus, as everyone knows and accepts, the explanation that a parent gives to a toddler who asks questions about how it came into this world tend to be very different from the explanation that a high-school teacher gives to the same child, when the child becomes ready to graduate from school into University. A child that is initially fed a diet of tales about storks flying in with babies wrapped up in blankets (and such) grows up to learn about the existence, and importance, of sex; about the fertilization of male and female gametes; about how a single cell (the zygote that results from the fertilization of a sperm and an ovum) develops into a foetus; and about the concept of how ‘ontogeny repeats phylogeny’ in any living organism, during the development of its form. Thus, it is widely understood that the explanation given to a seeker of knowledge must, and does, change with the maturity of the seeker, in any system of education. There is no shortcut. ?

Education involves multiple stages of expansion of perspective and scope. A child that develops a taste for learning, and receives opportunities for such learning, can choose to remain engaged with learning throughout its lifetime, as a teacher, researcher, professional, or hobbyist. A child that does not, or cannot (for some reason) do so, cuts loose to use whatever has been learned, to earn a living. Whichever happens to be the case, as the child transitions, in series, through each of the above-mentioned stages of education, and life, there is an accompanying expansion of perspective(s) that occurs, in parallel. The child’s life which mostly revolved, at least initially (and consciously) around its own body, and needs, becomes gradually transformed into a life that also revolves around its mind, and the needs of that mind. Thereafter, as the child progresses further, its life revolves not just around the needs of its own body and mind, and also those of the bodies and minds of its family, and friends. There is no shortcut.

Education also involves a gradual expansion of focus. The child’s world thereafter continues to expand, from a focus upon its own parents and siblings, to a focus upon a larger community of near and distant relatives; and onwards to those who speak the same language, work in the same profession, or subscribe to the same religion, or beliefs, as its parents. Following this, and sometimes concurrently, the child’s perspective expands even further, to include a focus upon the neighbourhood, locality, township, district, state, or nation/country of residence. This progressively re-defines the child’s identity, while expanding the nature of its identification with its surroundings. Following this, and sometimes concurrently, the child’s perspective expands further, from a focus upon its own gender, to a focus upon the other (opposite) gender, and thence to the very foundations of gender (and duality), and eventually to all of humanity, and to all living beings, and to the entire planet and its networks of living beings and inter-connected ecosystems. Such progress does not happen in a day, or in an hour. It is necessary for such progress to take place through a systematic, and gradual, expansion of perspective(s) and foci; unless, of course, change happens to come suddenly, through the ‘crash course’ of some profoundly insightful experience that happens to cut through directly to an understanding beyond the child’s apparent years. Mostly, however, there is no shortcut.

The progressive expansion of perspective accompanies a progressive development of awe. As a child’s perspective advances, so do its feelings of awe, and wonder. The child develops awe for the vastness, and bewildering variety of textures, colours and forms (in this universe); awe for the apparent co-existence of order and disorder (evident in the apparent randomness of some things as opposed to the reliable cycling of the day and the seasons); awe for the apparent unity that relates things to other things (such as the presence of atoms in all materials, or the presence of cells in all living things); awe for the apparent possibility that everything in existence sprang from a common origin in space and time (the expansion of everything from a singularity that is posited to have existed in no-space and no-time, before the so-called big bang through which the universe came into existence). This needs to happen in stages. There is no shortcut.

Progressive expansion of perspective is only possible through constant reconciliation. The details of the awe, or wonder, mentioned in the previous sub-section are not really important. These can (and do) vary from one educational system to another. What is important is the principle, i.e., the understanding that a continuous expansion of understanding can only occur through the constant integration and reconciliation of newer perspectives with older ones. If this does not happen successfully, there tends to be a rejection of (or a recoiling from) newer perspectives presented to the child; especially when such perspectives appear to be in conflict with perspectives that were held earlier. Whenever there is the wilful establishment of an inflexible dogma, a conflict arises between such dogma and other dogmas that jostle for space within the human psyche. These then have to be resolved, before further progress can occur. There is no shortcut.

Education cannot usually be hurried-up or condensed. It is important to appreciate that the manner in which education expands perspective cannot really be shortened, hurried-up, or condensed. The mind appears to function like a vast and powerful computer. Knowledge appears to be best organized within the mind into a semblance of a vast and organized library of learned concepts, assumptions, predictions, and verifications of assumptions, which are best filed away in a systematic manner once a seeker of knowledge has attained closure in respect of any of these. There is no shortcut.

The need for a filing system within the mind. It is necessary for such ‘filing away’ to be done into tidy boxes that are packed within other (larger) boxes that are, in turn, packed within other (even larger) boxes, and so on, through the constant integration of smaller perspectives into larger perspectives that happen to be more all-enveloping than the ones learned earlier. There can be (and indeed, are) several ways of packing concepts into boxes. However, there is no escape from the need to pack boxes in an order of increasing size, scope and scale, from the smallest to the largest. Nor is there any escape from developing the capability of reconciling apparently irreconcilable perspectives, by gaining higher, and higher, levels of understanding and comprehension; levels that enable one to look past the differences that divide, to see the similarities that unite different perspectives. There is no shortcut.

The order in which education proceeds cannot usually be scrambled. One progresses to high school only by going through primary and middle school, in that order. The sequence cannot be flipped, or re-ordered. Likewise, one can only go to university by first going through high school, and then through community/intermediate college (or senior school). This order too cannot be flipped, or re-ordered, although some students can jump forward, flying through some stages without having to go through them like others have to (as an aside, a brief explanation for why this happens must invoke multiple incarnations of the mind, and the granting of ‘advanced standing’ in each successive incarnation, to prevent the repetition of what has already been learned). The schools in question could be institutions run by the educational boards, or governments, of different countries (or country-states). Such schools could be found to use different levels of emphases upon different things, at different stages. They could also be found to be offering different students different flexibilities, and options, based upon perceptions of their particular strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats, which could also be tailored to match the needs of students sourced from different backgrounds. Whatever the system (i.e., the system doesn’t matter very much), in no system is there any escape from the need to progress through the continuous expansion of perspective; through a systematic sequence. This is the point that this sub-section makes. In each system, children are required to gain some knowledge, turn this knowledge into understanding (through application, and experience), and proceed to gain some more knowledge, to reconcile that with whatever was learned before, and turn that into understanding, and so on. There is no shortcut.

Religion also involves an expansion of perspective, like education. As long as the mind and its development are involved, there are always stages, and there is always a system; some system; whatever system. Things are similar with religion(s), since religions exist to satisfy the mind’s need to unite with something greater. Religions illuminate the relationship that we have with our existence, and with the source of this existence. They claim to try to help us to join ourselves (re-ligate ourselves) with this source. Therefore, in our relationship with a system of religion too (just as in our relationship with any system of education), grander and grander perspectives must come to be held within the mind. There is no shortcut.

In parallel with the expansion of our understanding of the scope of our existence [e.g., from thinking that we live upon a flat earth, to thinking that we live upon a round planet, to understanding that this round planet appears to whirl in space around the sun, along with its moon, to thinking about the entire solar system, and the fixed stars and constellations, and the galaxy that hosts the sun, and the large system of galaxies that hosts our galaxy, onwards to an unimaginably large universe, and to large multiverses of such universes, and to infinite systems of such multiverses], it is necessary for anyone who invokes a common principle underlying the generation of our ability to sense and understand all this to simultaneously also conceive of, and invoke, various entities that could be responsible for managing them. This could be a hierarchy of entities with different degrees of power (granted by the mind), just as different entities help in the management of our physical lives, in government, and elsewhere. Such entities could be conceived to be progressively more and more powerful (with some, or one of these being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient). Even if such entities eventually end up proving to be only the creations of the unlimited imagination that we ourselves appear to possess, or the unlimited imagination that others around us happen to appear to possess, we have to deal with these and understand them. There is no shortcut.

In religion, an expansion of perspective transports one gradually from ritualistic modes of observance of different practices that are performed unthinkingly, through different stages of propitiating different levels of the mind, to an absolute and unfettered wonderment about the nature, and origins, of consciousness itself, which is our own real nature; to the wonders of conscious experience; to the wonder that is the puzzling continuity of consciousness through time, and space, in a form that happens to be anchored within physical bodies (which, however, constantly change form and yet somehow continue to act as a vessel for a seemingly-continuous experience of a single incarnation of such a life); to consideration of the possibility that knowledge, presence and agency might run potentially infinitely, through all of time and space, in this universe; to a wondering about the possibility that everything is made up of a common matrix of something that is really very, very fundamental (like an intelligent vacuum that is even more fundamental than the concept of atoms, and perhaps even more fundamental than the concept of ‘superstrings’ in physics which vibrate within this intelligent vaccum, if not something that is even more fundamental). Here too there is no shortcut to progress through stages of understanding and conception.

Analogizing religion to education can be useful. Eventually, the mind proceeds to giving birth to newer and newer conceptions of whatever it is that one calls God, or divinity; which is a name that one gives to the most supreme form of consciousness that one imagines to be holding our entire conscious experience together [rather than just a name for something that is limited by form, texture or colour, like us; even though it could be necessary for us to start off on the path of wonderment by conceiving of such a being (who is like us), as a lens through which to view the infinite potential that lies within ourselves, and everyone else]. Here too, there is no shortcut.

Just as in educational systems, in religion too, therefore, there is theory, and there is experiment. In religion too, there are instructional classes, and there are practical classes that seek to turn knowledge of theory into a gaining of understanding, through the application of knowledge, and the gaining of experience, through the performance of service(s) and through meditative contemplation. There is no better way of understanding that others are like us than to engage with those others in a spirit of service. We must perform service before we are allowed to understand how grandly this whole experience has been set up. There is no shortcut.

SECTION 2: THE RECONCILIATORY NATURE OF EDUCATION

Now, let us dwell for a bit upon how the life of a mind can become expanded through the study of science. The reader may note that everything that I say here about science can also be said about history, literature, art, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, or indeed about any other subject under the sun, including religion. However, I shall talk mainly about science because science is what I can talk about without being questioned in respect of credentials.

The nature of reality, as described by the science that everyone hears about. Consider the following, as a possible precursor to understanding the apparent (but unreal) differences amongst religions. In middle school, one learns that matter is made up of atoms, and that atoms follow the regular everyday laws of mechanics, just like a ball in any game of sport. However, in high school, one learns that atoms are made up of subatomic particles, and that these can appear to behave as particles, or as waves, depending upon how one chooses to observe them, using an experiment that anyone can set up (even at home) called the double-slit experiment. Following this, in senior school, one learns that all particles are actually made up of standing waveforms of energy; and that matter and energy are themselves fully interconvertible; and also that when one accelerates an electron to a fraction of the velocity of light, one then needs to use something else called relativistic mechanics, and not ordinary everyday mechanics, to understand the behaviour of that electron, and so on. Then, rather startlingly, in the early years of college, one hears that it is quantum mechanics (and neither relativistic mechanics, nor everyday mechanics) that must be used to understand the universe, and to understand the seemingly demonstrable fact that all possibilities become solidified into actual realities through the collapsing of what is often called ‘the collapsing of the wave function’. As we grow up, it becomes essential to take in grander and grander conceptions of reality and reconcile them with each other. There is no shortcut.

The nature of reality, as described by the science that everyone does not hear about. At university, one comes to know that the so-called collapsing of the so-called wave function, for every element of space, and every moment of time, is actually done by the mind of the observer, and by his/her intention; both of which act as a proxy for the consciousness of the observer. One also learns that the collapsing of the wave function is done at a level of the mind that is so subtle that it is almost beyond comprehension, because things such as the mind, and consciousness, are not really at all understood yet by science.

After this point, the physics appears to get mixed up with what is called metaphysics (the physics that is integrated with other subjects that are not yet held to lie within the realm of physics). The physics appears to get mixed up with our understanding of such things as the human psyche (and the science of the mind), because quantum physicists are not yet entirely confident about whether it is the conscious mind that collapses wave functions, in order to simultaneously create, and experience, a particular reality; or whether this is also done (or only done) by the subconscious, or superconscious, aspects of that same mind.

One is also never very sure about the extent to which the wave function tends to get collapsed by an individual mind, as opposed to its being collapsed by a collective of all the minds that partake of the same reality, and the same experience.

As with mechanics, similar expansions of perspective also take place in one’s understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity, and subatomic forces, all of which are things that we have learnt to describe phenomenologically, and mathematically, and things that we have learned to exploit in order to make useful devices, but none of which we really understand fundamentally. Thus, all talk about an electric field, or a magnetic field, or a gravitational field, appears to be scientific because the proposed laws that govern such fields can be verified through experiments done in laboratories with the investment of a little effort, by a suitably-prepared student, and not because the mind really understands what this field is or where it stems from, fundamentally speaking.

Thus, when one extends the concept of fields to ‘mental fields’, one moves into metaphysics, because we do not yet understand the laboratories (i.e., our bodies) that we need to use, in order to understand such mental fields. This is not to say that the concept of mental fields is completely useless. After all, even in a collectively-constructed reality, a stronger mental field could be thought to be capable of overwhelming other (weaker) mental fields, and perform the collapse of the wave function in a different manner from how everyone else does it, to appear to alter collective reality, in the manner that hypnotists do with a large audience by appearing to alter everyone’s reality. Alternatively, an individual could also alter only their own perception of reality, and be taken to be mentally unstable if such a reality does not overlap with that of others in the individual’s environment.

Thus, physics is whatever we are able to describe, and demonstrate, using extensions of previously-accepted concepts and principles, with its boundaries constantly getting stretched into what we call metaphysics today, and will perhaps come to call regular physics tomorrow. We might even discover that many of these things have already been discovered by ancient cultures, and then hidden away in codified texts that become plain only once an entire population matures to become the cognoscenti. There is no shortcut.

As one progresses in the study of physics, one comes to understand that all of the different forces of nature, which appear to us to be distinct, and quite unrelated to each other at all lower levels of energy, and experience, actually combine into more and more unified forms and ultimately into a single unified force of nature, as energy levels are progressively raised, until at energies that are unimaginably high (and associated with unimaginably high frequencies), all forces coalesce into a single force, and a single field (which the physicists call the unified field). For waves, i.e., when one thinks of particles and material objects as being made up of waves (or superstrings that vibrate at different frequencies), such unification is understood to be achieved by the raising of wave frequencies to almost infinitely high frequencies.

The holding and reconciliation of multiple apparently mutually-conflicting perspectives in science. Importantly, when perspective is expanded through one’s education in science, one is taught not to throw away anything that has been learned previously. Rather one learns to integrate perspectives derived from different levels, and to understand that each perspective is true, but only to a certain degree, and only within a certain frame of reference. One comes to appreciate that even if there is only one single perspective that happens to be true in all simpler contexts that happen to be less refined, such a perspective (or context) is not necessarily always the one that we need to apply to a given context.

Thus, when one is upon a playing field and engaged in a game of sport, one needs to remember that a ball that is hurtling towards one’s face at over a hundred kilometres an hour is a material object that can cause injury to one’s soft tissues, as well as to the hard bony tissues of one’s face. This much at least one is required to do, even if one is supremely (and simultaneously) confident that the ball is not really an object, but largely empty space (made up of atoms that are themselves mostly empty space; or even seething assemblages of superstrings). One needs to do this because that which engages with the ball (i.e., one’s body, or face) is also a physical object, even though what may be happening is ultimately only “illusion colliding with illusion to cause illusory damage to an illusory object”.

Just as all the bits and pieces of everyday consciousness that we possess when we are awake do not happen to be entirely available to us when we sleep and dream at night, the profound knowledge that everything is actually empty space is of very little avail to us in this physical world, unless we have learned the methods for actually turning ourselves into empty space if (and when) necessary.

Of course, when one has oneself become empty space, or when one has oneself become capable of switching between corporeal and non-corporeal states, then one can justifiably see the hurtling ball and think of it as being nothing but empty space, or an illusion created by energy that has congealed into matter. And those who have advanced to such an extreme level of understanding (note: not knowledge, but understanding) and capability, could also potentially then ‘collapse the wave function’ differently, to escape injury, e.g., through instantaneous teleportation, if such were possible, or choose not to do so.

For the rest of us ordinary mortals who remain engaged in some form of education, or in some form of religion, or both, without yet having advanced to the most refined levels, in either domain, the requirement is that we apply different levels of understanding while considering different questions, and contexts; at least while we remain students, and until we have ourselves become masters. A student is required to determine which understanding to apply in which context, and to understand the workings of nature at all levels, and to hold all perspectives to be true at some level, even if there is only one ‘ultimate’ reality that underlies all other realities. Here too, there is no shortcut.

The path to that single ultimate reality of energy (or, at a more refined level, the ultimate reality of consciousness itself) must pass through the valley of many births, and deaths; the births and deaths of many different ideas, concepts and illusions; each necessary, but not sufficient, by any measure.

Incidentally, Hinduism holds that many such births and deaths occur both within a single incarnation of the mind (and the soul, or consciousness, that manifests through it), in every infinitesimal moment that appears to pass, and also that multiple incarnations are necessary to cover the entire course of study. With multiple incarnations, a student is understood to quickly pass through all previously-undergone stages and then continue from that point onwards, in each new incarnation. This is comparable to the concept of ‘ontogeny repeating phylogeny’ in the development of the embryos of different organisms.

In all this, the student who thinks that he/she has understood relativistic mechanics, or quantum mechanics, and thus imagines that there is no such thing as everyday mechanics, can end up getting very quickly despatched into the hereafter by a speeding ball, or vehicle, to discover that there are indeed other realities, and that consciousness does not end with the ending of a particular incarnation. However, it is believed that such a student then does not remain in possession of the exquisite faculties of discernment that appear to be available when one’s consciousness is housed within a mind occupying a physical human body. This is why it is often said that we must study, and work, ‘while it is day’, i.e., while we occupy this physical body which houses a discerning terminal, or portal, for the mind, in the form of something that is commonly called conscience (a much misunderstood concept). The conscience is the discerning ability of the mind that develops through stages, as reasoning comes to be aided by an intuition that gradually replaces animal instinct. There is no shortcut.

The relevance of the above considerations to religion(s). Similarly, in the arena of religions, some religions hold that there is one supreme reality, or consciousness, or God; i.e., a God who is only and entirely transcendent. Other religions hold that one’s belief in a supreme reality that is evidently also transcendent (if it exists) must necessarily be combined with the understanding that such a consciousness cannot be merely, or only transcendent, and localized only within one transcendent entity, but that it must be also immanent, ?i.e., present within every component of time and space proposed to have been created, sustained or destroyed by such an entity (for how else would such an entity manage to be omnipresent?). Yet other religions hold that the transcendence of this supreme entity is not a transcendence that involves a shift of scene from any one theatre of space-time to a different theatre of space-time (e.g., a theatre in which time passes much more slowly, and space uses different dimensions from the three that we inhabit). Such religions hold that the transcendence of God is a transcendence involving no-time and no-space, i.e., a transcendence beyond time and space, or a transcendence squeezed into the ever-passing moment of ‘now’, in the arrow of time. The result of such a conception is that the only form of such a transcendent entity that can be considered to be available to us (within space-time) is a disseminated and distributed entity that is only immanent, since that which is truly transcendent cannot be imagined or conceived and, therefore, cannot really be called an entity, by our current definitions of the word ‘entity’.

About that entity, we cannot even say that it is the most real of all entities, because the word ‘is’ is itself a verb, and something that requires the passage of time, and the existence of space. Such a transcendent entity is thus beyond any description, in any language. One progresses towards such conceptions through stages. There is no shortcut.

The above three types of perspectives (God that is only transcendent, both transcendent and immanent, or only immanent) cannot be said to be in mutual conflict. They could just be considered to be three different sets of words that are used to describe a single reality that lies beyond description through the use of words. But it takes much immersion, and reflection, and contemplation, and instruction, and experience, before one comes to accept that any one of the above perspectives could merely be a subset, or superset, of the other, with all perspectives actually being just different (graded) forms of the same One truth, i.e., perspectives that result from a viewing that takes place from different levels, and different viewpoints, with none actually being the ultimate truth because, as already determined, the ultimate truth is something that cannot be described from within space-time, using language evolved in space-time.

The wise seers of old in the Indian subcontinent are reported to have said, ‘Neti, neti’ which translates into ‘Not this; not this’. Until such time as one reaches this perspective in respect of everything that can be experienced by the mind, one has no option but to look at each such truth and say either, “Yes, this too, but not this only” which is a form of theism, or “No, no; not this; not this” which can appear to be a form of atheism. As one progresses, therefore, one can pass through alternating stages of theism and atheism, by clinging to a higher rung of the ladder of understanding, and then letting go of it, to seek a rung that is even higher [such that one then appears to those who still cling to a lower rung, for a time (but not forever) to be an atheist, in relation to what such people currently believe, or hold to be important]. This illustrates just how dangerous it can be for one who does not understand this evolution to be given the right to determine who is a believer, and who is not a believer. Everyone is a believer, but it is possible that one may appear not to be a believer to one who has prematurely arrived at the view that there is only one reality, and one truth, who then goes around destroying everything else that he/she believes to be beyond the pale of that one truth (without understanding the contradiction that is inherent in such acts).

Just as education teaches us to understand that every truth is a graded truth, so can religion, or the study of religion (or religions). The contemplation of concepts and precepts, teach us that every truth is a graded truth; looking beyond the figurative references that get taken literally too often; looking beyond the metaphors, analogies and symbols; looking to reach an understanding of things that is as holistic as possible, even if there is really no hope of ever really understanding anything that is everlastingly true (because it is impossible for the mind to conceive of such a truth, or put such a truth into words, because nothing that can be described by words can be everlasting, and because all things in space, and time, and the mind, must eventually pass away, except for the truth of consciousness which abides because it originates outside of space-time and only operates within space-time).

By progressing through many stages, therefore, and by letting go of dogma, one comes to know and accept that every claimed truth is at best an honest, and well-meaning lie; that every so-called truth at one level of reckoning is, at its core, only a very useful, beneficial, well-meaning, and utilitarian lie, when it is considered at a level of reckoning that is more refined (but a lie nevertheless). One then comes to know that every truth is ultimately a lie, except for that one single truth that must become the object of our search, and for which we must go searching while we remain in this physical body and in possession of a discerning mind (whether we ever find it or not), with the only hope of attaining to it involving being in the body, but not of it.

This is the truth that we are conscious, whether in an awake state, or while dreaming, or in a state of deep sleep, or meditation. The seers of old, on the Indian subcontinent, summarized it thus: ‘Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahuda Vadanti’, meaning ‘there is one truth, but the scholars distinguish it into many’. Until one attains to that One Truth, each graded truth of a lower order must remain a tool; a tool to be used as an aid for reaching ever higher levels of truth.

The education that occurs within a Hindu context causes those who indulge in it for an entire lifetime to learn to search for the ultimate truth while keeping in mind that one needs to keep an open mind; while remembering that nobody’s truth is either an absolute truth, or an absolute lie, including all of the truths that one has previously held to be one’s own truths in a particular incarnation, or over all of one’s incarnations (if one is ready to consider that one has incarnated many times).

If one is ready to do this, then all conflicts disappear within the mind, since one realizes that all go through the same (or similar) stages of evolution of their understanding. Then the kindergartener becomes dear to the doctoral scholar because the kindergartener is a human who might one day turn into a doctoral scholar, by the same process of alternately accepting and rejecting truths that are ever more refined, in climbing the ladder of understanding. This is the way of Hinduism. With every change of context that accompanies an expansion of perspective, must come a change of perspective that expands to encompass all previous perspectives, giving each perspective its rightful place under the sun, and taking no perspective so seriously that it comes in the way of one’s understanding of yet another perspective that is either more refined, or less refined, until one comes to that which cannot be understood through the mind. When one does this, one begins to understand that if there is indeed something (anything at all!) that is universally and eternally true, i.e., something that is true for all of space, and time, and also somehow also true from various points of view from within space and time, and also something that derives from a state of no-time (e.g., before the emergence of space, and time), clearly such a truth needs to be accessed gradually, and systematically, through the progressive expansion of perspectives. This can only happen through the progress of a mind through different stages of education, and evolution.

SECTION 3: BROAD SPECTRUM INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE DEI

Some systems of education offer opportunities only for learning to be done at a single level, e.g., a nursery or kindergarten school, or an institute that hosts only doctoral research scholars.

Residential scholars studying in such systems can potentially easily lose sight of the existence, relevance, or even the need of other systems. This is because the human mind tends to be forgetful by nature, and because it is possible for a Ph.D scholar to forget just how coarse his/her understanding of anything happened to be, while he/she was in kindergarten.

Other systems, on the other hand, allow one to learn progressively, through multiple levels, e.g., a school that hosts grades 1 through 10, or a college that hosts students studying for combined bachelors’ and master’s degrees.

In such systems, students retain some memories of the paths (and stages) that they have themselves traversed.

Yet other systems, although these are few, allow one to engage in studies at every conceivable level. I have heard of one such system that exists in the city of Agra, near Delhi. It is called the Dayalbagh Educational Institute (DEI). The DEI caters to virtually every conceivable level of education. Here is a snapshot of a web-page in which the DEI itself mentions that it hosts kindergarteners and doctoral scholars. URL https://www.dei.ac.in/dei/DSC2021/?page_id=999

?Children enter the DEI at the most elementary (nursery/kindergarten) level. If they so wish, they can leave the DEI with a Ph.D, without ever having to lose sight of the other levels of education within the same institution (involving younger students with lower levels of maturity/ understanding), and without ever having to leave the institution (to study further, because the DEI itself offers the entire spectrum of courses, a broad array of disciplines, and all possible levels of study).

Now, let us imagine how students studying for a Ph.D in the DEI could be expected to view students entering kindergarten in the DEI. I would suppose that the former would look upon the latter fondly (and not contemptuously) remembering what they themselves were like, in times past, and seeing (in similar pre-schoolers) the very same potential for growth that their own seniors (who came before them) once saw in them, in times past. Further, all such reflection and contemplation would necessarily take place without there being any scope for one’s forgetting one’s own past selves and immature avatars, in lower classes, because the walls and buildings of the DEI (and its sprawling grounds, and the entire campus) could be relied upon to constantly serve as reminders of the progress of a continuing piece of consciousness through different levels of understanding.

This could almost be guaranteed to cause the doctoral student to understand the need for the progress of understanding through stages, and to cause him/her to look fondly upon the kindergartener’s understanding of concepts as necessary, and (fortunately, or unfortunately) unavoidable, but relevant only to a staged growth of understanding, without there being any judgement of the kindergartener to be either inferior, or any sort of enemy of the doctoral scholar.

Thus, while the kindergartener (or the strutting adolescent) could very well pick a fight with an older student, the older student would be likely to tolerate the kindergartener’s or adolescent’s threats, or inimical overtures, in proportion with the maturity of his/her own understanding. The doctoral student would know that the kindergartener would eventually grow out of such fights. Any such system could thus be relied upon to encourage tolerant behaviour towards others, and not too much of intolerant (immature/overenthusiastic) behaviour, regardless of whether such behaviour arises from within the institution, or from outside. This is how Hinduism’s evolution and establishment of tolerance may be viewed, in respect both the views that impinge upon it from outside its folds, and the responses that such views arouse (from within its folds).

Another feature of an institution like the DEI would be that a dropout from elsewhere would be likely to be admitted to a class appropriate to his/her own level of understanding, i.e., with full belief in that individual’s potential for growth, but without making the mistake, e.g., of admitting one who needs to engage in study at the high school level into a class filled with Masters’ degree students. Doctoral students at the DEI could also be relied upon to desist from trying to explain the theory of relativity to toddlers attending kindergarten, during common time spent in the DEI’s vast grounds, when all of the institutions’ students emerge from classes for some respite from studies.

Similarly, one imagines, students of grade 12 in the DEI would not come to fisticuffs with students of grade 4, about the real nature of atoms, or about the actual size of the universe. The students of grade 12 would know, from personal experience, that a time would come, around grade 5, in the life of every student, when the mind of the student would naturally expand, to cause the student to write his/her address thus: DEI, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India, Earth, Solar System, Orion arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, Milky Way Galaxy, local cluster of galaxies, supercluster of galaxies.

The students of grade 12 would know from their own experience that the grade 5 student would one day wonder about questions such as: ‘how big is big; or how long is long; or what is the nature of infinity?’, or ‘how small is small; or how short is short; or what is the nature of the infinitesimal?’, and then either pursue such questions further, or abandon them, to pursue more worldly things with more apparent and tangible results. The grade 12 students would know that the process could not possibly be hurried, or altered. Some could be relied upon to drop out. Some could be relied upon to resume. Some could be relied upon to go the entire way, and finish the entire course of study.

Everyone at the DEI could thus be anticipated to be ready to accept that everyone cannot be held to be simultaneously ready to understand everything, at the same point of time, or at the same age, or stage. The field of education clearly knows that everyone is not meant to understand the theory of relativity, or the laws of quantum mechanics. Therefore, schools teach the laws of everyday mechanics, optics, wave motion, electricity and magnetism, and leave it there. Then, one who thirsts for more ends up going to the university.

Religions do not always appear to understand this. That is why they fight, because they define themselves extremely tightly. That is also why they evangelize, because they do not understand that one who is ready to accept the One truth will gravitate towards it naturally and readily, whereas one who is not yet ready to accept the One truth will literally make mince-meat of that One truth by slicing it up in as many ways as is necessary to satisfy the ego (which is the main thing that stands between multiplicity and unity). That is why religions also resist the evangelization attempted to be done by others.

What is there to fight about? Everyone, and everything, is seeking to unite with the source, consciously or subconsciously. Even sex, drugs, alcohol, and gluttony, are only indulged in without limits by those who (although misguided) are actually seeking to unite with something that elevates one from one’s current situation of being separated from everyone and everything else, and in a state of polarization and duality, into some temporary state of bliss. Everyone is seeking the same truth, or truths, by whatever name(s), in a manner operated by the same consciousness that operates this universe. Why should it then be anyone else’s business to regulate what one’s own views are, given the centuries of evidence which demonstrate that coercion creates reactions and conflict? One naturally gravitates back towards that which is one’s own nature, in any case, even if one has prematurely been dragged towards something that one was not ready for.

Hinduism arises from the ancient view of sages and seers that the duty of religion is merely to offer perspectives. It is up to the individual to gravitate towards those perspectives that they feel naturally inclined towards. Thus, within the same Hindu households, it is common to find individuals who cleave to different beliefs without conflict. For most of its existence, Hinduism has understood this basic need. This is why it has created an environment of tolerance and freedom, and a broad umbrella covering everyone and their current understanding of reality, and truth. This is why Hinduism abides, and has survived. The easiest way to destroy something is to define it too clearly, for to do so is to automatically also end up defining what it is not. That which we exclude, excludes us. Therefore, if that which we exclude happens to exist somewhere, it must inevitably enter into conflict with us, in an effort to attain and maintain dominance. This conflict usually ends with one emerging triumphant, and destroying the other. This is much like one class in an educational institution destroying another class that is perceived to be less, or more, refined. Hinduism (being a very old faith) understands that this is akin to burning the rungs of a ladder that one is oneself upon.

Thus Hinduism, which includes all possible conceptions of God, and the Godhead, enters into conflicts with nobody and with nothing. Of course, occasionally, in order to preserve its own umbrella-like character (when this is overrun by zealots from within, or without) Hinduism has also (historically) used violence even if this is not usually within its nature. It is important that such reactions of Hinduism are engaged in by those who have understood its most refined aspects. Otherwise, Hinduism is likely to end up aping every other faith, and destroying itself, in trying to remodel itself in the image of other faiths, by trying to excessively define what it is, or what it is not.

Hinduism functions very much like an ocean. Within this ocean, everything becomes incorporated and dissolved. By resisting narrow definitions, and by incorporating components that correlate with those parts of every other religion that also, similarly, resist narrow definitions, religions have the chance of offering their subscribers the freedom to subscribe to the tenets of any faith even while remaining in the faith that they are born into, by interfering in no one’s conception of God, or the Godhead. Hinduism has thus far managed to abide, and survive, by this principle. How this is so has been explained more fully in the next section.

SECTION 4: ANALOGIZING HINDUISM WITH THE DEI?

Below, I argue that Hinduism is like the DEI because it is a system that allows subscribers to study up until any level that is preferred, or suitable, while giving students as much time in each grade as might be necessary for them to clear that grade and move on to the next grade. Because, depending upon the level of consideration, Hinduism holds supreme consciousness to be simultaneously (i) transcendent, (ii) immanent, (iii) both transcendent and immanent, and (iv) neither transcendent nor immanent, it allows subscribers to be theists of every conceivable persuasion, as well as atheists of every conceivable persuasion (ranging from those who refuse to accept any one particular conception of divinity, to those who refuse to accept any, or all, conceptions of divinity).

Therefore, Hinduism allows those of its subscribers who are theists to see supreme consciousness as being immanent in every infinitesimally-small, and infinitely-large, entity that exists. Then, based upon their own preferences (i.e., apparent free will), and also based upon a program (or system) of karma (also known as destiny, or pre-determination) that holds space and time together in a matrix (or net of karma), every individual is thought to take repeated incarnations under circumstances that are suited to the stage of further education that they need to undertake.

Subscribers to Hinduism are thus free to see Supreme Consciousness as being:

Immanent in any physical, or non-living object of one’s liking (e.g., idols, or buildings, made of wood, stone or metal, or the sun and its planets, and the stars, constellations, and galaxies), until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this same Supreme Consciousness as being manifested in any corporeal and physical living being that is not human, but which possesses a special quality that is close to the heart of the subscriber (e.g., a plant, or an animal), either out of an admiration for such a quality (e.g., a cow) or out of fear of the potential that it holds for destruction (e.g., a snake), until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this same supreme consciousness as being manifest in a physical and corporeal living being who is a great generalist filled with all qualities to a certain degree (e.g., a human; in the form of a parent, or teacher), or the epitome of all such generalization (e.g., a physical Guru), until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this same supreme consciousness in a non-physical as well as non-corporeal manifestation of a particular force of nature [e.g., ‘gods’ such as electricity (Indra), wind (vayu), fire (agni), or water (varuna), or their derivatives], until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this same supreme consciousness in a non-physical as well as non-corporeal manifestation of the commanding presence, knowledge and agency that supreme consciousness possesses over the past, present and future, and over all of far-flung space (e.g., some angel, or god, of which there are too many types to describe), until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this same supreme consciousness in a non-physical as well as non-corporeal manifestation of the capacities of the archangels to cyclically create (e.g., Brahma and Brahma’s consort, Saraswati, who signify the masculine and feminine aspects of ideation and knowledge), sustain (e.g., Vishnu and Vishnu’s consort, Lakshmi, who signify the masculine and feminine aspects of continuance, through the possession of wealth and well-being), or destroy (e.g., Shiva and Shiva’s consort, Sati/Parvati/Durga, signifying the masculine and the physical aspects of the power to destroy that which has been created and sustained for a length of time), until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this supreme consciousness in a non-corporeal as well as non-physical ‘integrator’ of all of the three capacities mentioned above (i.e., creation, sustenance and destruction), in respect of space-time and everything that exists within space-time, at the level of the senses (e.g., Purush or Alakh Niranjan, and Purush’s consort, Prakriti, signifying all of nature and existence), until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this supreme consciousness in the form of a sound, or a vibration, or a waveform, at the level of the mind (e.g., Brahm/Kal and Brahm’s consort, Shakti), signifying both the anchorage of past, present and future, and the creation, sustenance and destruction of all space-time, and all experiences of individuated consciousness within it, through the application, conservation, and transmutation, of energy, and derivations of this energy (Shakti) from the creative vacuum of the mind (Brahm) from which all things spring, live and die, until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,?

OR to see this supreme consciousness in the form of a very rarefied aspect of space-time that integrates all masculine and feminine principles into a single entity that is simultaneously both the entity (e.g., Par-Brahm/Mahakal) and its own subtly-different consort (e.g., Mahamaya, or Adya), and an even more refined set of vibrations or sounds that sometimes take form, and sometimes remain without taking form, until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this supreme consciousness in the form of an even more rarified manifestation, such as the individuated consciousness (i.e., the concept of the individuated soul) that exists within every living and non-living being, both corporeal, and non-corporeal, and which includes every plant, animal, planet, star, god, angel, archangel (creator/sustainer/destroyer) and every Creator of even more refined level, until the limitations of such a conception have been realized,

OR to see this supreme consciousness in the form of something that exists in, as well as beyond, all of space-time and beyond all multiverses of universes, as well as beyond all infinities (e.g., the concept of the Akal Purush, or Sat Purush, or True creator, signifying no-time, as well as all-of-time, as well as the smallest instant of time, as well as the bow of the ship of time signifying the ever-present ‘now’; one who is the source of all consciousness in space-time, as well as the source of everything that allows this universal consciousness to become individuated and to create/co-create, sustain/co-sustain and destroy/co-destroy everything in existence through the application of energy). Sush a Sat Purush or A-kal (i.e., beyond Kal) Purush is conceived of the creator of a hierarchy of creators, extending from the unmanifest to the manifest. This creator is conceived to be pure consciousness, self-generated, unborn, simultaneously manifest and unmanifest, as well as its own cause and consequence in the manifest universe. This is considered to be the true Guru, which is also embodied in the mind, and in the flesh, in the form of a Guru embodied in a human form.

About this Akal Purush, or timeless-creator (called the Akal Purakh in Sikhism), it is difficult for Hinduism (or any other religion) to engage in descriptions that use words. This is because words must include verbs of some kind, and because verbs must denote actions of some kind, and because actions must occur within space-time of some kind, because actions cannot take place if there is no space, and when no time passes. Akal Purush is conceived to be beyond space-time and the very source of space-time.

Therefore, it is difficult to say that this Sat Purush or Akal Purush directly takes form, because such a creator can only take form, in the mind’s conception, by manifesting as Kal (or through Kal, or within Kal, and by borrowing a form from Kal), in space-time. And yet, this form is considered to be beyond the control of Kal.

In the true realm of the Sat Purush or Akal Purush, it is conceived that everything that exists does so simultaneously. It is conceived that individuated consciousness experiences time by engaging in a passage through time, rather than by the passage of time past the individuated consciousness, i.e., by something that is the exact opposite of what it seems to be, within space-time.

This concept of Sat Purush, manifest in creation as a vibration that creates and experiences everything, and which can be sensed, or ‘heard’ in a state of meditation as the ‘sound of the self’ in Hinduism and Sikhism is actually not different from similar concepts that exist in other cultures, or faiths, e.g., in the conception of the Haq, in the middle-east, or the Tao, in China, or the Word/Christ/Holy Ghost in modern Western cultures. These are words that are used to describe the unnameable truth, or Sat, which lies beyond time, space and description. The whole concept is essentially one in which reality (which does not belong to time, or space), is sliced up into time, and space (essentially like the two sides of a coin) by the manifestation of the truth in the form of the universal mind, and the manifestation of these sliced up bits of consciousness (souls) in the form of individuated minds that function like stepped-down versions of whatever it is (which is indescribable) that lies beyond time, and space, but gives birth to everything in time and space.

Thus, at the end of the line, Hinduism allows its subscribers to see supreme consciousness within (and through) themselves, through a course of meditative contemplation, guided by one who has gone along that path before, to merge into God (a Guru), since the entire experience of space-time, in any case, occurs within the consciousness embedded in the mind wearing a physical body. Hinduism holds that this body must be kept still, for the mind to remain still, in meditative contemplation, so that it can realize its own source and release its clutches upon consciousness, thus allowing consciousness to merge with its own source outside of space and time. These are the concepts of Yoga (union), and the Guru (bringer of the light) who guides such Yoga, at every level of one’s evolution, from a Guru, to a Sikh-Guru, to a Saadh-Guru, to a Sat-Guru.

Hinduism holds that the human form is the highest of all forms, even though it is not as aware of the past, present and future as the archangels, and even though it is also apparently much poorer at understanding nature than the animals, plants, and other forms. This is because only humans are thought to embody all five levels of creation (solid, liquid, gas, fire/plasma and ether) and possess the ability to peer behind the illusion, by making the mind fight with the mind until the mind moves aside and allows the soul to taste of its own reality, after other (false) impressions have been erased. Thus, Hinduism conceives of the ‘nar-narayani deh’ or the body that simultaneously houses the individual and the infinite. This is no different from the conception of the human being as ‘the top of all creation’, ‘the temple of the living God’, or the ‘ashraf-al-makluqat’, in other faiths and cultures.

Until such time as a subscriber understands all this and is able to see everything within his/her own self, Hinduism also holds that a human can choose to see Supreme Consciousness in everything, and in everyone else, and understand that everything around us is nothing but a reflection of the same Supreme Consciousness that manifests in our (human) form for a space, and a time. By doing all this, Hinduism spans everything from the kindergarten stage of religion to the research stage of religion. How is it possible to take such a system and attempt to classify it as being either theistic, or atheistic, or mono-theistic, or polytheistic, or pantheistic, or as anything, in particular, at all? Hinduism resists classification precisely because it recognizes that every truth is a graded truth and that every truth is at best a well-meaning lie; one that is necessary to subscribe to, in the form of some belief, for a time, and for a space, until something more refined takes its place.

While we are stuck in space-time, as with other faiths and religions, Hinduism holds that the only real thing that we need to hold onto is love. Love is the rope that extends from the infinite to the infinitesimal, and transforms the un-manifest into the manifest, and vice versa, manifesting within the creation of the mind as the Word of the infinite (Naam, or Shabda form of the nirguna Brahma) which upholds all of creation, as explained in numerous tracts called the Upanishads, which are a commentary on the Vedas. Love is the only thing that can help us to transcend the mind and rise above it to become one with our own reality, and with all of reality. In believing this to be true, Hinduism is no different from other faiths that also hold God to be love.

Humans are the same in essence everywhere upon the planet. All believe either that something beyond us is responsible for this experience that we call life, or that something within us is responsible for the experience, with a few believing that whatever is beyond us is also within us. Some subscribe to a religion. Some do not. Hinduism accepts both kinds of humans into its fold, because both are correct from their own points of view. There is indeed something that lies beyond what we appear to be in our current form; however, in essence, we are also ourselves that which we seek and believe to lie beyond ourselves. This is the lesson that is imparted by the Vedanta in Hinduism which teaches us thus: ‘That thou art (Tat Tvam Asi)’ or ‘That am I (Aham Brahmasmi)’.

Meanwhile, we are free to do as we please (through predetermination masquerading as free will) until it is time for us to return to the source by erasing impressions upon our minds and winding up our various affairs here. By allowing the itinerant mind-soul partnership to gradually progress through different stages of evolution, maturation, and growth and reconciliation of perspectives, Hinduism is thus very much like the DEI in its being a very broad-spectrum organization through which a single thread runs, namely: Constant Growth and Constant Expansion of Perspective.

AFTERWORD

The article has actually ended on the previous page. This section is only for those who would like to read some more. Unlike the previous sections, which have been written in a somewhat more tight fashion, this section is written loosely, and tends to be a bit of a ramble with considerably more repetition (which I have not bothered to edit out). If you have a taste for such things, please read on. There is considerable discussion of religion in general and also of Hinduism in this section too; however, the part of the article that offers readers a ‘pakad’ of Hinduism based on the analogy with education, and the DEI, has already concluded above.

Religion is the opium of the mind. There are some age-old concepts that we all tend to either consciously, or subconsciously, admit into the mind, and then proceed to hold within the mind, in different states of acceptance and/or denial. These are essentially concepts about how we appear to be separated from something that is more ‘present’ than us; more ‘alert’ and ‘observant’ than us; more ‘potent’, more ‘sentient’, more ‘scient’, and more ‘sapient’. Some call it nature. Others call it God. Yet others call it Gaia (referring to the earth, and sometimes to the universe).

Sometimes, we feel that this ‘thing’ from which we are separated actually exists within us, and that everything that we sense actually exists within us. At other times, we feel that it exists somewhere outside of us; perhaps in some place of worship; or in some special building, or city, or upon some mountain, or in a forest, or upon some far planet, or star, or at the centre of this, or some other, galaxy.

Sometimes, we feel a gnawing need for union with that thing, whatever it happens to be. This need occasionally goes away for a reason, a season, or even for an entire lifetime (or incarnation) but it can also end up reappearing when we least expect it, to turn us away from atheism into a further refined form of theism, and then back again into some kind of atheism, and then back again into an even more refined form of theism, so on.

Most especially, the gnawing need reappears when we are upon bad times, or in a state of confusion about what we once thought we had figured out completely (e.g., the world and our lives), and also when things don’t go our way, in life.

The gnawing need is thus felt as a need to join back with (or re-ligate ourselves to) something that is much bigger, greater or grander, than our puny mortal selves, since it becomes clear to us that these selves occupy physical forms for just a few tens of orbits of this Earth around the Sun, which we refer to as years, within the overarching context of an infinite universe that appears to be infinitely old.

The need to re-ligate is as old as humanity itself. In fact, this need is the very foundation of every religion. The feeling of being separated, isolated, and set adrift in time, and space, originates in the very experience of our possession of these physical bodies and minds which slice-up our experience of space, and time, into little parcels, constantly fooling us into thinking that we are distinct from every other body, or mind. These bodies and minds dissect and analyse the experience of life, functioning like intelligent (and autonomous) automatons, causing us to go around in circles, or in ever-widening spirals of thought and understanding that eventually go nowhere.

Funnily, in our very desperation to join back with something that is greater, we end up trying to dissect and analyse (and sometimes also destroy) these very bodies and minds, as well as the bodies and minds of others who inhabit the planet with us (who subscribe to a different faith, or a different culture), even as we seek to try and unite with those others, and with the whole. This tendency has led to many a war upon this planet. These were wars that were perceived to be holy by misguided individuals engaging in echo-chamber-style group-thinking; by individuals who could not see that if God is truly God, and if God is indeed all powerful (omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient) then there can be no other God but God (and not even Satan) except as a figment of human imagination.

Every faith claims that the human form is the repository of the highest form of conscious experience, since it possesses a manifestly apparent free will that arises from a nebulous understanding of time. And yet, through many so-called holy wars, humans have destroyed other humans, through intolerance that was born of ignorance and pride.

Despite our best efforts to cleave to religion, and in the fullness of time, we slowly begin to understand that this body cannot ever re-ligate with (or achieve ultimate union with) the infinite. It can only re-ligate with other bodies, once it re-ligates with the earth and its elements, through cremation or burial after physical death, and once it is no longer a part of who we are, or who we think ourselves to be.

Again, despite our best efforts, and in the fullness of time, we also slowly come to understand that the mind can only ever re-ligate with some sort of larger (and more universal) mind, and with nothing else, for everything in our experience teaches us that things can unite only with other things that are of their own essence, and character. So, if the body does go and merge with other bodies, in atomic or molecular form (as a part of the earth and its processes of recycling organic and inorganic matter), and if the mind does go and merge with other minds, when it is eventually able to give up its sense of separateness, or ego, to understand that this entire existence is just one big family, one comes to understand an important aspect of Hindu thought which is expressed by the words, ‘Vasudhaiva kutumbakam’. This expression literally means that the entire existence is just one large family.

The question that then arises is whether we are only the body, and the mind, or something else altogether. What about consciousness? How is it that we are conscious? Such thoughts give rise to the concept of the soul. That which we refer to as consciousness is something that we do not yet understand. We can describe it. We can characterize some aspects of it. But we do not yet understand it, because we try to use the mind to reach such an understanding.

Some argue that consciousness is a product of matter, i.e., that all consciousness is ultimately a derivative of the body (or more specifically, of the brain that houses the mind within the body). Others argue that since consciousness is ultimately responsible for our experience of space and time, it must be consciousness that instead regulates the body and the mind. Then, there are also those who hold that it is consciousness that creates the body and the mind, as well as our entire experience of life, although this is not yet evident from our everyday individual experience(s); perhaps because we have limited this consciousness deliberately, in some manner, by occupying the mind, and the body, to have the individual experiences that we are having, as individuals rather than as the whole.

The debate goes on. And yet, the suspicion just doesn’t go away that it could be consciousness itself which is the stuff and substance of whatever it is that we humans end up calling the soul. In that case, the question that then arises is this: Do we have a soul, or are we ourselves the soul? In other words, are we souls that are wrapped within minds that are, in turn, wrapped within bodies? Or do we sometimes refer to the soul that is wrapped within the mind, and the senses, and a subtle body (retaining the shape of this very physical body after death), as the soul, or spirit? Confusion abounds.

What does the soul need to re-ligate with, if it exists at all? Does the soul need to re-ligate with some sort of an over-soul; i.e., with that which we might call God, by whatever name? Is that thing then non-corporeal? Is it non-physical (like a field)? Is it manifest? Is it non-manifest? Is everything that we think, feel and experience, just a product of the imagination that derives from that thing? Is imagination itself real, rather than that which is imagined? We tie ourselves up in knots with such questions.

Hinduism calls the soul the ‘atma’ and the over-soul the ‘param-atma’ or the ‘supreme-soul’.

In using this word, ‘param-atma’, Hinduism rather cleverly acknowledges two things.

(i)?????????????????That there is a difference between the atma and the param-atma. This is the basis of Hinduism’s belief in the transcendence of God, and in the duality of God and everything else, as the primary basis of all duality, and multiplicity.

?

(ii)???????????????That there is a similarity between the atma and the param-atma. This is the basis of Hinduism’s belief in the immanence of God, and in the non-duality of God and everything else, as the primary basis of an underlying unity.

As I understand it, therefore, Hinduism holds the soul to be of the very essence of God and yet not quite God, because God is the whole, and because the soul, by definition, is only a part of that whole, i.e., something that is identical in quality, but not identical in quantity; something that is like a holographic version of the whole without actually being the whole.

This dialectic gives rise to constant shuttling of Hindus between the Dvaita philosophy, which holds God to be primarily transcendent, and Advaita philosophy, which holds God to be primarily immanent (with this entire universe and all of its multiverses making up the very body of God). Issues that revolve around this basic debate plague the itinerant consciousness as it ploughs through human existence; apparently alone, and apparently in a state of ever-present separation from whatever supreme consciousness happens to be responsible for the experience of this existence; however, with the feeling that some scope exists at all times for it to reunite with its source.

And so, some say that this consciousness is an indivisible part of universal consciousness; that the feeling of separation is only an illusion; and that whatever holds this experience together is that which we might call love (a tendency to unite, as opposed to the tendency to separate and divide). Some say that it is this love itself which can be called God, or param-atma, rather than any particular entity, or identity.

Ultimately, if there is any truth at all to the concept of the atma being a part of the param-atma, it must be admitted that the atma is already a part of that which it seeks and, therefore, that it must already be united with the param-atma (from before the beginnings of time and until beyond the ends of time), and of the very essence of the param-atma, by its very definition, since the nature of consciousness is also love, and the tendency to unite with, and integrate, all that is experienced.

In part, of course, it is meaningless for us, therefore, as beings who exist in space and time, to talk of unison and separation with something that lies beyond space and time; beyond actions, and beyond the verbs that can describe those actions, in whatever language, if our real selves also originate in that thing.

Therefore, it stands to reason that the thing that continues to seek union desperately is not the same thing (the soul) which, in any case, unites and integrates all of existence into the single composite experience of the life that we keep held together (from birth until death) in a single body, and which in any case is not separate from the over-soul.

Instead, the thing that continues to seek union desperately must be the thing (the mind) that constantly divides and analyses everything in existence and experience. It is with the mind with which we engage with this world; and with all others who inhabit this world, through a variety of tools and senses.

Therefore, religion must be the need of the mind, and not the need of that which we call the soul. If we can move this mind aside, or move away from its constant whispering, there is nothing left to accomplish. Hinduism holds that the individual mind does eventually unite with a universal version of the mind [which is known as Brahm and which, together with Maya (illusion), is the progenitor of the past that creates everything in existence (Brahma), the present that sustains everything in existence (Vishnu), and the future which portends the destruction of everything in existence (Shiva)].

This unison of every mind which possesses all three of the above aspects, with the universal mind, or Brahm, is understood to occur with great difficulty, and with much effort, because the mind remains engaged in dividing and maintaining divisions, remaining separate from everything and maintaining its individuality, through the medium of the individual ego, even as it cries out in pain and pretends to seek union. This is why the occurrence of this very difficult union is celebrated in Hinduism, as it is celebrated in every other faith and religion. This is why one who possesses knowledge of how the mind creates everything that is experienced is called a Brahma-gyani, or the all-knowing one, and sometimes as a ‘sadh’.

And yet, it cannot be denied that to know everything is also to be trapped by everything that one knows.

A being that can view the past, present and future, and a being that can sense time as ‘something that consciousness passes through’ rather than as ‘something that passes through consciousness’, is effectively trapped by time, or Kal. Such a being can basically view some form of itself as being present in the distant past and also in the distant future, i.e., such a being can see itself as being something that is time-less, simply by being stretched out through all of time (Maha-Kal), occupying different forms, rather than as something that stands outside of time (Akal), knowing nothing and everything at the same time. Hinduism looks upon these two tendencies of the all-knowing one, in a state called Par-Brahm, as a physicist would look upon centrifugal (out-going) and centripetal (in-coming) forces associated with anything that is in some sort of motion in circles. The mind spirals outward into material existence. The soul spirals inward towards an existence that cannot really be called an existence, but must be called an existence in the ocean of all souls (the param-atma), for want of better words. Hinduism thus holds that the soul (pure consciousness, and a part of universal consciousness) is unconcerned with the mind, and with religion, and with the making of any effort towards union, and functions only as an observer, partaking of unity and duality and enjoying it.

Hinduism also holds that the soul needs no religion because it is of the very essence of the over-soul, by its very definition. This is the essence of the Vedanta, which literally means the end (or anta) of the Vedas (or scriptures). The Vedanta stipulates that there is no need for effort, but only a need for realization of the love which is the basis of all existence, and a surrender to this love, which is God. When this love arises, the lover needs only the beloved and nothing else, and merges into the beloved.

Therefore, in the view of Hinduism at its most refined, what the soul needs is not religion, but spirituality, once it has passed through the rigours of religion. Spirituality is the activity of immersing the soul, along with the mind, into a path that leads initially to the union of the mind with the universal mind, and thence to the ‘realization’ that the soul has always been a part of universal consciousness, and was never (ever) really separate from it. This realization is said to arise only when one is rid of the constant prattle of the analytical mind that speaks, dissects, and discerns.

Meanwhile, effort remains important, i.e., while one remains distinct from everything in the entirety of one’s current conceptions. And so, Hindu religion is also thought of as the process of gradually becoming conscious of the mind, and of the mind as being something that is distinct from the soul, and the process of quietening the mind into a state of silence, or dissociating itself from the prattling mind into a state of stillness, to allow the soul to realize that it is one with supreme consciousness, or God.

The strange thing in all of this, however, is this. There are those in whom love for all existence is so overpowering that the mind is overpowered almost without any effort. These are the born seers and sants/sages/saints; those who possess true sentience.

For all others, and especially for those who have spent time sharpening the discerning ability of the mind to a state of razor-sharpness, there is the need for them to first rise to a highly-refined level of discernment using the mind’s razor, before throwing away this razor. This then provides the mind with the realization that it needs to become the sleeping/submissive partner in the mind-soul partnership, and not remain the dominant (and constantly prattling) partner, if both are ever to attain realization and merge into their respective universal forms (the mind with the universal mind, and the soul with the universal soul).

Quite contrarily, the mind thus finds repose in the universal mind only when it gives up the fight by first engaging in the fight. This is the fight with the mind that many religions refer to as ‘the holy fight’; a fight in which the mind and the soul battle for dominion over each other even as both rise beyond the level of the separated senses, and ideas, and conceptions. All of yoga (where the word yoga means union, being derived from the word ‘yuj’, which is the process of yoking something to another thing) seeks this. Only once this has been achieved can the mind be said to have found its own home in the universal mind, and be willing to release its clutches upon the soul, which is pure consciousness and a particle of God. Hinduism thus ultimately holds that yoga is what ultimately allows the soul to escape from the clutches of time and space (i.e., the mind, or Brahm, or Kal), and become able to merge into universal consciousness (the realm of truth, or Sat).

Thus, almost mystifyingly, Hinduism also acknowledges that although the soul itself needs no religion, in its current state of subjugation by the mind and body (that, funnily enough, are its own creations, as well as its current captors), the soul does very much need religion, if for no other reason, at least for the sake of the mind that currently holds it in captivity.

This is a dichotomy that Hinduism accepts. Hinduism accepts that the mind (which is just another name for the ego, born of the feeling of separation, and the assumption of separateness) is currently dominating both the soul and the body, which remain in the thrall of the mind, having wilfully surrendered to the mind in order to experience and revel in separateness. Once the veils of the mind are removed, the soul cannot view its real self (the over-soul) and live.

Therefore, as long as this is what constitutes one’s truth, i.e., that the mind dominates the soul and the body, religion becomes the need of the mind-soul partnership, and not just the need of the mind alone. Only once the mind has found repose in the universal mind, can religion be thought to be no longer useful for the individual. After that point, only spirituality remains useful, since the soul (atma) seeks to travel beyond time and space, to realize its oneness with the over-soul (the param-atma) of which it has always remained a part, by definition, during its sojourn through space-time.

All religions have kernels of practices and protocols and prescriptions for leading a life of balance. All religions also have cores that reflect this same understanding of spirituality. And Hinduism is no different. Where Hinduism is different from other religions, therefore, is not so much in the depth of its understanding, but rather in the inestimable breadth of the practices that it allows its practitioners to engage in, without interference, understanding that the same one objective (the need to re-ligate) underlies all practices, to different degrees.

This is mostly because Hinduism is an old religion, and one which has learned through long experience that everything has its time, and its place, and that everything is not for everyone, all at the same time. This is the main thing that makes Hinduism different from other religions. Hinduism understands that it is necessary for individuals to pass through stages of believing in many gods before they truly accept (rather than only as mouthed platitudes) that there is only God, and nothing else. As long as one believes that creation is real, and not an illusion, Hinduism understands that numerous gods that trap and test the seeker by becoming the object of the seeker’s devotion, help to train the sojourning mind-soul partnership to understand that the many gods are simply all forms of the one God.

Hinduism thus understands that one progresses through different levels of understanding, through different experiences, in different incarnations of the same one life that every soul lives (in this ‘creation’ of the universal and individual minds, and of the senses). The breadth of its allowed practices, and precepts, is thus both what distinguishes Hinduism from other religions and also what causes other religions to constantly try to over-run and obliterate it, even as they try to obliterate each other – each fighting for distinction, and exclusivity, while pretending to seek union. This is why I have argued in the article that the best way to understand Hinduism is by comparing it to an educational institution, or to a system of education that differs from other systems of education in scope and breadth, rather than in depth.

All religions have the same depth. They all speak of the body, mind and soul constituting what is called a triune being (regardless of how this triune being is conceived, and regardless of which of the three things, i.e., the body, mind or soul, tend to be mostly fed by the current practice of that religion). Because Hinduism recognizes that understanding dawns slowly, and through stages, it is perceived to be the most tolerant of all religions. Hinduism too will, of course, disappear someday, or take a different form, or a different name, just as everything that exists in time must disappear, in time. This will happen when Hinduism becomes so dogmatic that it insists on the adoption of a single track, and code, for all who live within its umbrella, regardless of whether or not they are ready enough (or mature enough) to travel upon the track that is prescribed to them. Meanwhile, Hinduism exists as this broad set of tracks, and the world might want to try and understand what Hinduism is like.?And that is what the rest of this article was about.