Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

The belief of reincarnation of the soul is an integral part of the Hindu belief system. If there is one belief that all Hindus hold, whether Vaishnavites or Shaivites, whether idol-worshippers or not, whether Dvaitins or Advaitins, it is the belief of reincarnation of the soul. It contrasts diametrically with the Christian/ Muslim belief, based on the Bible and the Quran respectively, that this life is the only one we have, that we face a Day of Judgment after this, and that based on that Judgment, we will be dispatched to an eternal hell or eternal heaven. There is no reincarnation, no coming back. There is a concept of a heaven and hell in Hinduism of course, and it finds mention in the Bhagavad Geeta as well. In fact Krishna begins with a mention to heaven when he says in chapter 2, verse 2, "From where has all this dirtiness come into you at this untimely hour? They are practiced by non-aryans. They don't lead to heaven but to disgrace." In verse 8, Arjuna says, "I cannot see how to drive away this grief which is drying up my senses, even if I win a prosperous, unrivalled kingdom on earth with lordship like the gods in heaven." And in verse 32 Krishna says, "Unsought, arriving at the wide open gates of heaven - happy are the Kshatriyas, Partha, to whom such gains come." And in verse 37 he says, "Being killed, you will receive heaven, winning you will enjoy the earth." In verse 43, "For the purpose of sense gratification, with heaven as their goal, they consider birth as the reward of action and prescribe many special rites for moving towards opulence." Then in chapter 9, verses 20 and 21 he says, "The knowers of the three Vedas, drinkers of soma juice, purified of sin with sacrifices, seeking and praying for heaven, because of their pious lives, attain the dwelling place of gods and Indra, where they experience divine experiences of the gods. Experiencing the great heavenly realms, on reduction of their piety, they return to the realms of the mortal peoples."

"Hell" is mentioned in the Geeta four times: in 1:42, Arjuna says, "This intermixing certainly leads to hellish life both for the family and for its destroyers." And in 1:44, he says, "The people whose family systems are spoiled, Janardana, dwell in hell daily, thus I have heard." Then in chapter 16, verse 16, Krishna makes a mention of hell: "Perplexed by many things, covered by a net of delusions, attached to the purpose of sense gratification, they fall down to hell in an unclean state." And in16:21 he says, "Three kinds of gates are there of this hell, by which the self is destroyed - sense gratification, anger, and greed - therefore these three, give up." Hell here seems to be more of a "terrible life here on earth", and not a Biblical or Quranic "place of eternal fire that subjects its inhabitants to terrible torments."

Thus there is clearly a concept of a heaven and hell in Hinduism that finds mention in the Bhagavad Geeta as well. The big difference is that the Biblical/ Quranic heaven and hell are permanent places, the words "eternal" and "for ever" being used often to describe them. The following are a list of the passages in the Bible and the Quran speaking about the eternal nature of heaven and hell. From the Bible:

Quotes from the Quran:

Thus the Biblical/ Quranic heaven and hell are permanent places, whereas the heaven and hell of the Bhagavad Geeta and the Hindu belief system are temporary places. As Krishna says in chapter 9, verses 20 and 21, "The knowers of the three Vedas, drinkers of soma juice, purified of sin with sacrifices, seeking and praying for heaven, because of their pious lives, attain the dwelling place of gods and Indra, where they experience divine experiences of the gods. Experiencing the great heavenly realms, on reduction of their piety, they return to the realms of the mortal peoples." According to the Hindu belief system, people who lead pious lives do go to heaven where they enjoy the superior pleasures found there. However on reduction of their piety, they return to the realms of the mortal peoples i.e. to earth. Hence while the purpose of life according to the Bible and the Quran is to lead such pious lives that one attains to the eternal heaven and avoids the eternal hell, the purpose of life according to the Bhagavad Geeta (and indeed the entire Hindu belief system) is to attain moksha i.e. liberation from the cycle of birth-and-death (what’s the point in coming back over and over again to learn the same lessons anyway?).

Which of these is the truth?

First of all, we need to be aware of the fact that both the beliefs, reincarnation as well as an eternal heaven and hell, are Dharanas, i.e. beliefs without proofs, mental constructions. And in our search for the truth, the sooner we do away with our Dharanas, the better it is for us! "With the obliteration of all of one’s mental constructions that (Brahmic) status abides" (Annapurna Upanishad II-34). Not that we shouldn’t have Dharanas at all, for then life would be impossible! We need Dharanas, i.e. mental constructions that are beliefs without proof, to live our lives practically. But these Dharanas, these mental constructions, these beliefs without proof, need to be held loosely. To understand the importance of this, let’s take an everyday-life example. Presumably, most people reading this work as employees for some company or the other. The underlying Dharana, the belief without proof, is that you will receive your salary at the end of the month, and month after month if you continue in its employment. It works fine while the salary keeps coming. But what happens if at the end of one particular month, a circular comes out from the management saying, "As many of you may be well aware, the economy is going through a crises, and our company has also been badly affected. We are facing a temporary problem of cash. Hence we regret to announce that we are forced to delay the payment of salaries for this month. We expect the cash problem to be resolved in a few days time. We are doing our very best to solve the problem at the earliest, and we hope to pay your salaries as soon as possible. Hence we request you to bear with us in our moment of difficulty, and help us tide over this temporary crises. We are all members of one family and we need to… blah… blah… blah…"

What happens to the person who has held his Dharana rigidly, who has held rigidly his belief that his salary is surely going to come at the end of the month, and has depended on it and has built his life on it? What happens to the person who has a firm belief in the stability and infallibility of his company’s financial health, who has never ever thought of the possibility that his salary might not come?

First his mind goes blank. When he comes back, he is shaken, he is shattered. He sees the ground slipping from beneath his feet. He sees his world falling apart. He sees his dreams being broken. He sees his entire future suddenly becoming bleak. And the heavens falling on him.

But what happens to the person who has held his Dharana loosely, who knows that the company is in trouble, and who has kept at the back of his mind that the next month’s salary may or may not come? He simply gives a knowing smile, and straightaway goes to his computer to check his email as to whether there are any replies to the resumes he has already sent!

Most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, all hold their respective Dharanas, the beliefs without proof, so rigidly, that the vast majority of the people on earth are going to be shocked after death! Christians and Muslims hold the Dharana that there is either an eternal heaven or an eternal hell after death. Hindus hold the Dharana that there is either moksha or a temporary heaven or a temporary hell after death, and they will come back to the earth to continue their spiritual development from where they left off. Atheists hold the Dharana that there is nothing after death. All these are beliefs without proof. Since they are self-contradictory, only one of them can be true. Or to rightly put it, at the most only one of them may be true. The actual reality may be something else that no one has the foggiest idea of! But what is definitely true is that the vast majority of the people on earth are going to be quite shocked after death! Shocked, shaken, shattered. The ground will slip from beneath their feet as they come to know that what they believed so strongly throughout their lives was a lie! Their world will fall apart. Their dreams will be broken. Their entire future will suddenly become bleak. Atheists may find themselves shown the door of an eternal torment in hell, something that they laughed at. They may be shocked that the Theory of Evolution on which they had put so much trust on, was a lie based on the flimsiest of grounds, created and believed in more because people in general do not like the idea of a personal God to whom they are accountable. Or Hindus may find that the hell they assumed to be temporary, is not temporary after all; that the Bible and the Quran were right after all, that although they led "good" lives, they were thrown into an eternal hell because they did not give up their idol-worship. "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death" as it says in Revelation 21:8. Or Christians who "trust" in Jesus and go around shouting his name, may hear from his own lips on the Day of Judgment, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:21-23) In fact according to Revelation 21:8, even the cowardly are going to be thrown into hell! Or Christians and Muslims may find that there is a reincarnation after all. It would of course be worse for Hindus and Atheists if they have got it wrong, than for Christians and Muslims if they have got it wrong. If Christians and Muslims have got it wrong, and there is either reincarnation or nothing, then they suffer no sweat. But if Atheists or Hindus have got it wrong, then they are in for a nasty surprise! Atheists will find that there is a further life after all, and since they had not bothered about it, they will find themselves unprepared for it, like the employees in the example above who found themselves unprepared for a missed salary, and maybe worse to come. If Hindus have got it wrong about reincarnation, they may find that there are no more chances, that the chance they had was the only one, and that they frittered it away in the false belief that there are plenty of more chances available.

Besides those who got it right (and we don’t know at this stage who they are), the only persons who are not going to be surprised are those who held their Dharanas loosely (like me!) and were ready for any eventuality! Aware of all the Dharanas, and their self-contradictory natures, and the fact that there is no real proof of any of them, that any of them may be the truth, such people hold their Dharanas loosely, not putting too much emphasis on them. This becomes even more logical and sensible once we realize how we have come to have these Dharanas in the first place anyway and how we become biased towards particular Dharanas. This is how Dharanas are generally formed: Right from their childhood, Christian and Muslim children are taught about an eternal heaven and hell, and this indoctrination makes them biased against believing in reincarnation. On the other hand, right from their childhood, Hindu children are taught about reincarnation being the truth, and this indoctrination makes them biased towards believing in reincarnation and against an eternal heaven and hell. The beliefs continue long after they have grown up, become so embedded and fossilized in the minds of the respective people, that they start appearing as the truth. Even the possibility of the opposing belief system being the truth appears ridiculous to them. The belief in reincarnation appears ridiculous to the Christian and the Muslim just as, and as much as, the belief in an eternal heaven and hell appears ridiculous to the Hindu.

Working out this line of thought systematically and comprehensively, we can draw up the following table which takes into account all eighteen possibilities formed from the combination of the three factors (3 x 2 x 3):

There it is – the complete range of possibilities and outcomes. The first column contains the three basic beliefs as held by most people today. The belief of eternal heaven and hell is held by Christians and Muslims. The belief of reincarnation is held by Hindus, Buddhists etc. The belief that there is nothing after death is generally held by those who follow the religion of Atheism. Also note that we are talking about the real religion of a person, not professed religion; the religion as seen by his life, not by his words. A person may profess to be a Hindu or a Christian and may pay lip-service to them, but if his life shows that he is living more like an atheist (as many people today do), then his real religion is Atheism and not Hinduism or Christianity.

Which of the three beliefs in the first column will turn out to be true, we don’t know. The third column contains the three possibilities, as to what will actually happen in the future. Which of these will happen, we don’t know. Nor are the events in the third column in our hands. We cannot do anything about them anyway. The three possibilities of the third column will happen to us, we will have no control over them. We have control over only the first two columns – what beliefs we hold (and how loosely or strongly we hold them), and how we live our lives – sinfully or righteously.

The worst negative surprises await people in categories 10, 16 and 17 above, where they find reality after death much worse than expected. Pleasant surprises await those in categories 2 and 5 above, where they find reality after death much better than expected. There are no surprises awaiting those in categories 1, 4, 8 and 11 above, things after death are just as expected. For people in category 7, 13 and 14, there is a sigh of relief to be just saved by the skin of their teeth. And if the atheists are right and there is nothing after death (nos. 3,6,9,12,15,18 above), then there is no one left to be surprised anyway!

To come back to the question asked, "Which of these beliefs is the truth?" Since we can’t know for sure which of them is the truth, we can only re-word the question as "Which of these beliefs is likely to be the truth?", make some intelligent observations, and leave it at that. First of all, blindly accepting something by faith just because it was taught to you from your childhood, is no way of arriving at the truth. The way to test something that presents itself as truth is not to accept it blindly by faith, but the exact opposite – to hammer it with all your might, with all your strength, with all your intelligence, with all your skill, with all your ability, and with all the resources at your disposal, ruthlessly and relentlessly, in a sustained and systematic manner. Only when it can withstand such a hammering, should it be accepted as the truth. And that too, provisionally. If new facts emerge, that have a bearing on the case, the case has to be re-opened.

There is no need to handle anything that presents itself as the truth with kid-gloves. Truth is tough! Not only can truth withstand any amount of intelligent, systematic, and sustained hammering, it will actually win! Truth is a merciless destroyer of false beliefs. And religions don't stand a chance in front of truth if the beliefs they espouse go contrary to it. World history is littered with the carcasses of false beliefs which have been ruthlessly mowed down by the juggernaut of truth.. "Satyameva jayate" – Truth alone triumphs. And "triumphing" is not the characteristic of some namby-pamby set of beliefs that have to be protected from any assaults on it. It is the characteristic of Truth.

And so we hammer the three basic belief systems to see which of them stands up better. The hammering of the atheistic belief system is beyond the scope of this work. It is done comprehensively in "The Theory of Evolution: Work of Fiction, Taught as Fact!" and "Examining Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’" on my website http://akwri.webs.com and mirror site http://akw.faithweb.com. So here we concentrate only on hammering the beliefs of reincarnation and of eternal heaven or hell. Actually, I started doing this when I was about 25 years of age. After that, I have asked this question to many people who believe in reincarnation, with no answer worth considering seriously. The question is – "If reincarnation is the truth, if all souls are just being re-cycled so to say, then the world's population should remain constant. However, the world's population has been growing exponentially in the last hundred years or so. Where are all the extra souls coming from?" Today the world’s population is around 1000 crores. According to verse 12, which says that "There was never a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be," the world’s population should always have been the same i.e. around 1000 crores. But we all know that it was never so. The theory of reincarnation may have been a plausibility when the world's population was observably stable and census exercises were not regular and so there was no way to know the actual population, but now when we know as a fact that the world's population is increasing, the theory of reincarnation loses its plausibility. Creation ex-nihilo of the Bible and the Quran fits in much better with the observed fact of increasing world population than reincarnation.

One of the answers given for the question of increasing world population is that it’s not that human beings get reincarnated as human beings only. He who is a human being in this life may be born as a cat, rat, donkey, monkey, ant, elephant etc. in his next life. So also, he who is a cat, rat, donkey, monkey, ant, elephant etc. in this life may become a human being in his next life. All authorities are also agreed that reincarnation is not human beings to human beings only, it’s even across animal kinds. I quote the following three paragraphs from page 17 of the book "Coming Back – The Science of Reincarnation" published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust of the ISKCON:

Examples such as of that of Jada Bharat in the Srimad Bhagavatam (given in pages 61-75 of the same book), who reincarnated as a deer yet retained the memory of his previous life, and worked towards regaining his human form, also corroborate this view.

On what basis is the next life decided? It is decided on the basis of what a person desires most. The same book ("Coming Back – The Science of Reincarnation") quotes the Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.9.2) on pages 87-88 under the title "You get the body of your choice" as follows:

The principle is again clearly stated under "Once a Human, Always a Human" on pages115-116:

Where does it all start from? The answer as given on page 88-89 (quoting Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.4) is:

However, this belief, the belief that reincarnation is across species, and the body acquired in the next life is according to the predominant desires of the current life, poses even greater problems for the thinking person. Let’s take the actual example, a common example cited, given in the above book on page 105:

Now according to the statement made in the previous quote, "By the gradual process of evolution, the living entity again attains the body of a human being and is given another chance to get out of the process of transmigration." So for the gluttonous human-turned-pig to regain his human form, the pig will have to gain control over his gluttonous appetite first! Now I don’t know of any pig, nor have heard of any, who exercises self-discipline to gain control over his gluttony! If you know of one, please let me know!

And this principle is applicable across all animal-kind. According to the previous quote from the Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.4, all animals actually started off as purely spiritual beings who first take the body of human beings, and who by degradation, have now taken the bodies of animals. So if they have to regain their human forms, they have to evolve by appropriate realizations and exercise of self-discipline in the particular areas where they have degraded. The tiger, the lion, and all other purely carnivorous animals who kill for food, are all human beings who have become so because they loved killing others for their (non-vegetarian) food. So to gain back their human form, they have to first realize that it is wrong to kill others for their food, and then discipline themselves not to do so but eat only plants. Now I don’t know, nor have heard of, any lion or tiger who has realized that it is wrong to kill other animals for food, and who disciplines himself to not kill them, but eat plants only.

And according to the above belief, all vultures were earlier human beings who ate only the remains of other people’s food. To gain back their human bodies, they have to realize that it is degrading to eat only the remains of other’s food, and then discipline themselves to gather their own food, preferably vegetarian! And I don’t know, nor have heard of any vulture who does that. And all monkeys were earlier human beings who loved swinging from trees. To gain back their human bodies, they have to realize that swinging from trees is not what they are supposed to love, and then discipline themselves to give up that silly love of theirs! And I don’t know, nor have heard of any monkey who does that. Frankly, I don’t even know of any human being who loves swinging from trees! So where are all the monkeys coming from? And all snakes were earlier human beings who loved crawling on the ground. To gain back their human bodies, they have to realize that that’s not how they were supposed to move from one place to another, and then discipline themselves to walk on their feet! And I don’t know, nor have heard of any snake who does that. Neither do I know of any human being who loves crawling on the ground! So where are all the snakes coming from? And according to the above belief, all fish were earlier human beings who loved underwater swimming. And to get back their human forms, they have to realize that they were not meant to live underwater all their lives, and start disciplining themselves to stay out of water. And all the birds were earlier human beings who loved flapping their wings and flying in the air so much that they have now been blessed with bodies more appropriate for their likes and desires. Neither do I know of any human being who loves flapping his wings and flying in the air! So where are all the birds coming from? And all mosquitoes are actually degraded human beings who in their earlier lives loved to suck the blood of other human beings. Sorry sir, I can’t believe this! This sounds like utter nonsense to me. I cannot believe something just because it comes packaged along with the religion I happened to be born into. To me, what is more believable is the simple and straightforward statements of Genesis 1:24-25, "And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." This is far more believable than mosquitoes being blood-sucking human beings in their previous lives. And birds being human beings who loved to flap their wings and fly in their previous lives. And fish being human beings who loved underwater swimming in their previous lives. But let’s move on to the second problem that the belief of reincarnation raises for the thinking person.

The second problem that the belief of reincarnation raises for the thinking person, is that there are vast qualitative differences between human beings and other animals that just cannot be bridged by any effort or self-discipline on the part of the animals. We are talking here of the many differences of kind (and not differences of degree) that are present between human beings and other animals. We are talking about differences in innate abilities, not differences in learned abilities. For example, riding a bicycle is a learned ability. Some animals like monkeys, can be trained to ride a bicycle, and have been trained so for display in circuses. We are not talking about such abilities. We are talking about abilities that are present in human beings, but are not present in animals at all, not even to the slightest degree. Let’s take a simple example, the ability to learn mathematics. Even the most uneducated person, when he goes to the market and gives a fifty-rupee note to the shopkeeper after buying goods worth thirty-three rupees, knows how much to take back from the shopkeeper. He may not be able to solve differential equations, but given proper training, he will be able to do even that, since the innate ability is there. But this innate ability is just not there in any animal. Even the most trainable chimpanzee cannot be trained in this area. At the most you can train him to learn by rote and get exactly seventeen rupees back with the goods worth thirty-three rupees on the giving of a fifty rupee-note. But what happens when you give him a hundred-rupee note and ask him to buy goods worth seventy-two rupees? The ability to do simple mathematics that is present in all human beings up to the most dumb and uneducated ones, is simply not there in any other animal.

Similarly with the many other abilities that are present in human beings and just not so in other animals. The ability to set goals and plan and execute a plan for example. The goals and the plans that an adivasi sets and makes, will obviously be different from that of the high-flying jet-setting CEO of a billion-dollar multinational, but the process is the same. And this ability to set goals and plan and execute a plan is just not present in other animals. So also, the ability to think through situations is just not there in animals. And what to speak of the finest ability, the ability to ask questions and come up with answers about life and existence itself? As far as we know, no animal asks questions such as, "Who am I? What is life? What is death? What happens after death? Is there a God? If so, where is he? What is he like? Why has he created us? Who are we? Why are we here? What is the purpose of life?" The ability to ask such questions and come up with answers (right or wrong) is just not there in animals.

So if reincarnation is the truth, what happens to all these abilities when a human soul transmigrates to an animal body after death? Do all these abilities disappear completely? Aren’t they far more important than a slide into gluttony, which can even be controlled within just a month after proper self-realization and self-discipline? Do these important innate abilities count for nothing in front of a temporary slide into gluttony that can be easily corrected? And more importantly, where do they come from when the animal "evolves" into a human being? At least a pig disciplining himself to eat less and get control over his gluttony is conceivable if not believable. It’s only a difference of degree – the pig is only more gluttonous than the normal human being. But for a pig to get the ability to do maths, to think, to set goals, to plan, to ask philosophical questions, is a difference of kind. No amount of self-effort is going to give the pig such abilities. Where is the pig going to get such abilities from? The belief of reincarnation may sound like high philosophy, but high philosophies don’t interest me if they contradict truth. Even if it sounds mundane, truth is far more important than high-sounding philosophies that are not according to known facts.

The third problem that the belief of reincarnation raises for the thinking person is: When the soul transmigrates, does it retain its identity? When Krishna is saying that "There was never a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be," does he mean that "Arjuna" existed as "Arjuna" in his previous lives? Or did he exist as a homogenous mass of consciousness? To understand the question itself, let’s use an analogy. Imagine a drum in a factory full of metal pieces. Every day in the morning for ten days, they are taken out of the drum and sent for chemical processing. In the evening, they are put back into the drum. Each piece has a name. One of the pieces is named "Arjuna", another is named "Duryodhana" etc. In this case, each piece has an identity. The piece named "Arjuna" was also the same "Arjuna" on the previous day. The ball named "Duryodhana" was also the same "Duryodhana" on the previous day. This is the first scenario, in which the pieces retain their identity.

Now imagine another drum in the factory, this time full of water. From time to time, a bucket of water is taken out for cooling hot iron pieces. After a batch of iron pieces is cooled, the water is put back into the drum (we will assume no loss of water in the process). The next time a batch of hot iron pieces is needed to be cooled, another bucket of water is pulled out. This is the second scenario, in which the water in the bucket does not retain its identity. A bucket of water, once it is put back into the drum, merges completely with the water in it to become a part of a homogenous mass. The next time when a bucket of water is taken out, you cannot say that it was exactly the same water i.e. consisting of the exact same molecules. It may be, but it is highly unlikely to be so. The water has lost its identity.

The question is: Is reincarnation like the first-case scenario or the second case? If it is like the first-case scenario i.e. individual souls are discrete and retain their discreteness and individuality on death and rebirth, then the question of increasing world population pops up. There are only ‘n’ number of metal pieces in the drum, and they don’t increase. But the world population has been increasing continuously. Sure, the number of pieces in the drum can be increased by breaking them into smaller pieces, but that makes them lose their identity. "Arjuna" no longer remains "Arjuna" and "Duryodhana" no longer remains "Duryodhana."

If it is the second-case scenario, then increasing world population can be explained in two ways: Either smaller-sized buckets are used to draw out "more" buckets of water, or additional water is being poured into the drum from the other side. However that does violence to the language of verses 11 and 12, and is also against the examples cited by believers in reincarnation themselves. So the question remains unanswered.

Next, what are the proofs or evidence advanced to support the belief of reincarnation? Krishna gives an analogy in verse 22 to support the belief of reincarnation when he says, "As old and worn out garments are given up and new ones are accepted by a man, the soul similarly gives up the old and worn out body and accepts another new body." However, analogies are not proofs. Jesus used the analogy of what the fishermen did everyday to communicate how it will be on the Day of Judgment (Matthew 13:47-50): "The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

But just because a fisherman collects the good fish and throws the bad away (which is true) doesn't necessarily mean that the angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace (which may or may not be true). Similarly, just because a man gives up old and worn out garments (which is true) doesn't necessarily mean that the soul takes up another body (which may or may not be true). Neither of these analogies prove anything. If they did, they would have proved contradictory things! Analogies prove nothing. To keep our sanity intact we have to recognize that these analogies are used only to communicate, not to prove. Analogies are very useful for communicating, and all good writers and orators use them extensively for that purpose. They communicate clearly and simply what may be difficult-to-understand concepts. But they are useless for those who seek the truth. Analogies are useless in a court of law; the judge will immediately dismiss them as irrelevant. But that point will not come – for no lawyer will use them in the first place! We need to avoid the trap of considering analogies as proofs if we are to make any progress towards the truth.

Even assuming this to be a valid analogy used for communication purposes, a problem that this analogy creates is that it is not even true to the death experience! Our experience is that the soul does not want to leave the body, but it wants to cling to its body. Very few die willingly. Death comes upon man and he has no choice but to submit to it. He is not willingly shedding off his body, but he has to be compulsorily separated from the body. Death does not take place at the will of a man. Like the changing of clothes, it is not a voluntary, independent act, but is something imposed on man from which he cannot escape. The answer given to this question is that man does not want to die because he becomes too attached to his body and is under a delusion. "Children get used to, and get attached to their old, worn-out clothes and don’t want to change them. But the mother forcefully changes the child’s clothes for his good, without bothering about his wailings. Similarly God forcefully changes the bodies of people" so is the answer given. But even a child within a few years, learns to willingly give up old and worn out clothes, and by the time he is in his teens, he wants to change clothes even though they are not old and worn out! By this time, parents are wishing that their teenager would not give up clothes for new ones so often! It is strange that no one has learnt the elementary behavior of willingly and happily giving up the old-and-worn-out bodies even after thousands of years of changing bodies! Why humans, even animals show the behavior of not wanting to die willingly. In the clutches of the tiger, the deer will fight till its last breath for its survival. The self-preservation instinct is present in all animals. Even the animals don’t conform to the analogy, "As old and worn out garments are given up and new ones are accepted by a man, the soul similarly gives up the old and worn out body and accepts another new body."

Another trap one has to avoid studiously is the confusion of "possible explanation" with "proof". For example, the phenomenon of people "remembering" past lives and accurately telling about things which they could not have humanly known about, is advanced as a "proof" of reincarnation. Those who don't believe in reincarnation, such as Muslims and Christians, have a ready explanation for such phenomena - that there are enough number of evil spirits out there, willing to give such "knowledge" to specific individuals. We need to be clear that both of these are only "possible explanations" of observed phenomena, not proof. Mention may also be made of the phenomena of clairvoyance, in which a person can see or know what is happening at another place or time. How is the phenomenon of people "remembering" past lives any different from the phenomenon of clairvoyance at the root level? Only the time element is different.

We can also at this stage take a quick look at the various attempts made by the holders of the belief of reincarnation to find support from the Bible and the Quran for their belief. Says Swami Chinmayananda in "The Bhagavad Geeta – Chapter II" page 29:

Says the author of the book "Coming Back – The Science of Reincarnation" published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust of the ISKCON on page 3:

"Many passages?" How come all refer to only one passage? Anyway, we will let that pass. Paramhansa Yogananda goes even further. According to him, not only was John the Baptist Elijah in his past incarnation, Jesus himself was Elisha in his past incarnation! On page 320-321 of his "Autobiography of a Yogi," Yogananda writes:

Hmm…

So was John the Baptist Elijah? Do the Bible and the Quran support the belief of reincarnation? Our approach to understanding the Bible (and the Quran) has to be as objective as humanly possible. We can go by our "natural" inclinations (or beliefs formed from what has been taught to us from our childhood) and latch on to the Bible verses which support our beliefs, ignoring or rationalizing away others which contradict them. This may not be an accurate reflection of what the Bible actually says about the particular topic. Actually, anybody can prove anything from the Bible by plucking out verses, taking them out of context, giving meanings to them which don't fit in their contexts, ignoring or brushing under the carpet passages which contradict, or by using biased translations, or by finding hidden meanings, or by considering analogies as proofs, or by generalizing from a few examples etc. The multitude of sects in Christianity, each professing to base their beliefs on the same Bible, is proof of how easily our subjectivity can lead us astray. The note "Objectively arriving at what the Bible says" (in Appendix 1) lists 16 rules which help in being objective in arriving at "what the Bible says" about a particular topic. These are commonsense rules which most people would be unconsciously using anyway in interpreting the Bible such as not taking a verse out of context. When you hear such words as "reverent study of the Bible" and "intuitional perception", immediately go on your guard! Such words are often used to cover up (maybe unintentionally) a lack of rigor in objectivity. To arrive at what the Bible really says about a particular subject, what is needed is "objective study" and not "reverent study" or "intuitional perception"! Words like "Reverent study" and "Intuitional perception" have been used by the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh for years to beguile the simple and lead them astray.

When testing the understanding that the Bible and the Quran support the belief of reincarnation, against the rules of objectivity, we find that they violate four of the 16 rules:

See how the understanding that the Bible supports the belief of reincarnation, violate these four rules of objectivity:

So also the quotation from the Quran, Sura 2:28. We have already listed before the many passages from the Quran that speak about heaven and hell as eternal. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from all such passages, as any Christian or Muslim will attest, is that there is no way you can use the Bible or the Quran to support the belief of re-incarnation. It’s easy to use such arguments as above in books whose primary readership is going to consist of Hindus, for such arguments will massage their egos, but to really test the contention, talk to any Christian or Muslim who knows the Bible/ Quran well.

The next support that believers in reincarnation seek is that many eminent people have believed in reincarnation. For example, Swami Chinmayanada, in "The Bhagavad Geeta – Chapter II" cites on pages 29 and 30, the names of the Christian father Origen, Buddha, Virgil, Ovid, Goethe, Fichte, Schilling, Lessing, Hume, Spencer, Max Muller, Browning, Rossetti, Tennyson, Wordsworth. Needless to say, just because some eminent persons hold a belief to be true, does not make it true. Name-dropping leaves a judge seeking the truth unimpressed. Let’s move on.

It is also easy to see the general effect that these beliefs will have on those who hold them. Those who believe in reincarnation will believe that since there are plenty of future lives anyway, there is no hurry to right the wrongs prevalent in their lives. Positively, this can manifest itself in a stress-free, relaxed lifestyle in which there are no anxieties and worries. Negatively, it can manifest itself in the "chalta-hai" spirit so prevalent in India today. On the other hand, those who believe in an eternal heaven and eternal hell after death, will be on their toes to correct the wrongs present in their lives. Positively, this will manifest itself in a person who is not wishy-washy about his life, and who means business with God. Negatively, it can manifest itself in an anxiety-ridden, hyper-person who wants everything to happen yesterday! The wise person will try to have the best of both and worst of neither.

Another general effect that we do see in India, is that people who believe in reincarnation will generally have a lower value for life than people who believe that this is the only life we have. People in a Bhopal gas tragedy take years to get compensation due to them. Imagine if the tragedy would have happened in the USA or any European country where people sue, claim and even get millions of dollars in compensation even if they find their burger over-filled! In India the prevailing attitude is totally different. "Those who died will soon take rebirth somewhere else and continue their journey from where they left off. In fact those who died were better off than those who survived since they escaped the lifelong harmful ill-effects!" With an attitude like that, the value of human life is gone. I have heard of poor, destitute people pushing their children in front of cars so that they can claim compensation from the rich! The reasoning is, "If they die, they will get a better birth anyway. What good is the life they are living now?" The value of human life is zero here!

Enough said. We have looked at the various belief systems from various angles. What do we believe? I cannot speak for you, I can only speak for myself. What about me? What do I believe? For the reasons mentioned above, that it doesn’t fit the observed fact of continuously increasing world population, and the problems associated with the belief of transmigration of souls between human and animal bodies, I am inclined not to believe in reincarnation, but rather in the Biblical/ Quranic eternal heaven and hell, a belief which I find more logical, sensible, and according to day-to-day observations. I guess I owe a word of explanation here. To most people born and brought up in Hindu homes and Hindu environment, and taught from their childhood that reincarnation is the truth, the belief in an eternal heaven and eternal hell appears ridiculous. But bear in mind that to most people born and brought up in Christian or Muslim homes and environment, and taught from their childhood that an eternal heaven and eternal hell is the truth, the belief of reincarnation appears as ridiculous. To give an example, look at the following two paragraphs appearing in the book "Coming Back – The Science of Reincarnation" mentioned above, on pages 105-106:

First of all, we need to see that there is a clear distortion here. Both the Bible and the Quran portray God as a God of love and mercy, not wanting anyone to go to hell but wanting everyone to come to know him. Anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with the Quran knows that each and every 114 Suras (except the ninth) starts with the sentence "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful." And the Bible is even more lucid than the Quran in describing God’s mercy and compassion. Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son describes God as a loving father. Let me quote a part of it (found in Luke 15:11-24) which is meant to give you a sense of God’s nature. Read it and see if you feel that God is like a heartless father:

The author of the book asks the question, "Is it possible that man can show mercy or compassion toward others, but God is incapable of such feelings?" This is a highly distorted question. First of all, man does not show mercy or compassion toward everyone, he shows mercy or compassion only towards those who are repentant and penitent! And that is how it should be. If a man steals money from you and you catch him and if he falls at your feet crying and asking for forgiveness, then you show mercy and compassion. But if he shows no sign of repentance, if he arrogantly accosts you in return, do you show mercy? You don’t! In fact it would be wrong of you to show mercy to such a person. What if our courts start showing mercy and compassion to unrepentant criminals and give them no punishment but set them free? If they start doing that, then it would be actually be unfair to the law-abiding citizens! Life on earth would soon become hell! So even within man, there are both the aspects – there is mercy and there is justice, and each is exercised appropriately according to the situation and the spirit of the person concerned. So it is with God. Both the Quran and the Bible portray God as a loving, compassionate and merciful person, but also as a righteous judge. If he were not a righteous judge, then he would actually be unfair to the people who had lived righteously! His mercy and compassion are exercised towards those who show repentance at the way they have lived their lives; his judgment towards those who keep on being unrepentant.

Next the author uses the words "heartless father." No one who has read Jesus’ descriptions about God can believe that God is a heartless father. Does the parable of the prodigal son give you a sense of God being a heartless father? In that parable, the father first of all gives the son his full freedom along with his share of the property and lets him go. Then like a gentleman, he waits patiently till the son comes to his senses, never once forcing himself on him. When the son returns, he sees him while still a long way off, indicating that he was always keeping one eye open for his son’s return. The very sight of his son returning filled him with so much compassion that he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. When the son started saying to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son", he didn’t even hear him! But he said to his servants, "Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate."

"Heartless father" anyone? You have to have an extraordinarily distorted mind to see a heartless father here. The next questionable statement made in the above quote is that "God allows His children to be misled" and in a sense it’s true that God allows His children to be misled. He has given his children the full freedom to be misled if they want to. If you read "heartless father" in the above parable of Jesus, then what else can anyone say but you have allowed yourself to be misled, that blinded by your desperation to support your questionable doctrine of reincarnation, you are finding faults where there are none. God has given you the full freedom to be misled if you choose to. And no, he is too much of a gentleman to take away that freedom from you.

And "performance?" Is God interested in our "performance?" Does a loving father love his child because of his "performance?" Does a lover love his beloved because of her "performance?" She might do plenty of things for him out of her love for him, but is it looked at in terms of "performance?" Was the loving father in the above parable looking for his son’s "performance" to accept him? Anybody who thinks that God is looking at your "performance" to love you has got a pretty distorted picture of God. The world looks at your "performance" to love you or reject you. God doesn’t. You are God’s child. He loves you and accepts you as you are, because you are his child, not because you have done a lot for him. You may do a lot for him out of your love for him, but no way can it be looked at in terms of "performance!" It’s labor of love, and labor of love is no labor at all! People who think that their "performance" is going to please God should take a nature walk or look at the sky on a starry night. What kind of "performance" from you is going to please him who created the vast and beautiful universe? Can any "performance" on your part match even a trillionth of his "performance"? Do you have any sense? What are you talking about? Who are you trying to impress with your "performance"? God? The only valid "performance" (if it can be called that) that God is looking for from you, his child, is how fast can you go running to him and jump on his laps and sit on his shoulders so that he can carry you around! He enjoys it more than you do! The only valid "performance" (if it can be called that) that the human father in the above example was looking for was that his son come freely back to him. Only people who subscribe to the belief that heaven is a reward for a good "performance" (good karma!) on earth can think "performance." You have got it wrong, boss! Those who believe that going to heaven is merely a continuation of the running into God’s arms that they did so often on earth anyway, will never think in terms of "performance." They will think only in terms of enjoying their loving Father’s company more and more! Any "good actions" are only a natural outflow from the inside-out, out of your relationship with God. "First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean" (Matthew 23:26) and "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit." (Matthew 12:33)

The only valid question that is there, is about the "eternity" part of hell and here again, better understanding of what the Bible and the Quran actually say, is required. The eternity aspect of the Biblical/ Quranic heaven and hell can’t be denied. But how does one reconcile it with the nature of God as a loving Father? Yes, one can understand that a righteous God has to mete out some punishment to the unrighteous people, else he would be unjust to the righteous. But to consign a human being to suffer in hell eternally is a bit too much! Why not simply give him another chance? As the author says, "Even an ordinary father would give his son more than one chance to make his life perfect." How much more a loving, compassionate God who also desires that no one go to hell!

Over the years the church has certainly felt embarrassed about this doctrine. To avoid the embarrassment, the Roman Catholic Church has also come up with the doctrine of purgatory, which is a place of cleansing after death. If people repent there, they are sent to heaven, else they are sent to hell. This is a more comfortable doctrine for the Catholic Church, but unfortunately, it finds no support from the Bible and from Jesus’ own words. Jesus himself was absolutely clear that after death there is the Judgment, with only two alternatives – eternal heaven or eternal hell. Let’s take just one example from Jesus’ own words and I quote from Luke 16:19-31 because it also answers the "why eternity" question about hell –

There are many points that come out from this passage: Firstly that there is no way anybody can cross over from one side to the other. "Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." The passage totally contradicts the idea of purgatory. Secondly, hell is a place of utter torment. In hell, where the rich man was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ There is no point in trying to mitigate to horrors of hell. The man has full consciousness. He has not "dissolved into nothingness." He is the same person. He recognized Lazarus as another person. He remembers his brothers. He remembers that he did not repent. He has the same bodily desires and longs for one drop of water to cool his tongue! When Abraham answered him, the words were, "Son, remember." Remembering will be one of the torments of hell. The Quran, Sura 89, verses 23 and 24 say, "And Hell on that day shall appear, Man shall on that day

remember himself. But how shall remembrance help him? He shall say, Oh! would that I had prepared for this my life!" What would the rich man in the story remember? He would remember every sin he committed, just as a prisoner in jail remembers his crime. He would remember every missed opportunity to do good. He would remember how he kept himself busy with the things of the world rather than preparing for the future. He would be saying, "Oh! would that I had prepared for this my life!"

There is just no getting away from this! We cannot mitigate this with any idea of any purgatory. Both the Bible and the Quran are absolutely clear and unequivocal about both the horribleness and the eternity of hell! The only way is to honestly face the fact that they are clear about it.

Then how do we deal with it? How do we justify an eternal torment for sins committed in time? If weak and sinful men would not send their children to a torment of the kind that is expected to be in hell, then how can a loving God send His children to an eternal torment? Some punishment for sins is understandable. But how can it be eternal? Isn’t that too much? Even on earth, the punishment a law court hands out is to be according to the crime committed. No court of law sentences a person to be hanged just because he broke the traffic signal!

The answer is perhaps found in the rest of the conversation between Abraham and the rich man that clarifies things. After Abraham told the man that there was no way his sufferings could be relieved, the man said, "Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment." Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them." "No, father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." He said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

Notice some very interesting things here. Firstly, in spite of the fact that he knows that it is his sins that brought him here in the first place, he refuses to repent! He is concerned about his five brothers, but he refuses to repent of his own sins! This strange behavior is corroborated by two more passages in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 9:18-21 which is speaking about the plagues to be released on mankind in the end-times, it says, "A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury. The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts." Imagine, even after suffering the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur, none of the rest of mankind repented of their sins! The next passage is Revelation 16:8-11 that is talking about further end-time plagues, says, "The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him. The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done." Again notice that the people underwent the intense suffering of being scorched by the sun’s fire but still refused to repent! And again in verse 11, men gnawed their tongues in agony because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent! Instead they even cursed God in both the cases! The man’s behavior in hell where he refused to repent is totally in line with these descriptions. The Quran too, makes similar statements. In the latter part of Sura 17:60, it says, "we will strike them with terror; but it shall only increase in them enormous wickedness."

This strange behavior can be explained by the fact that there will be no good influences in hell and the people in there are really trapped in a vicious cycle. While we are here on earth, there are two types of influences operating on us – the good and the bad. The good influences come from the Spirit of God and the good people and teachings around us; the bad influences come from the other spirits and the bad people and teachings around us. In hell, there will be no good influences! Hell by its nature, is to be a place where the Spirit of God is not going to be present. Neither are any good people going to be present there. With all positive influences removed, what will be left to influence man to give up his sins? There will simply be nothing left to cast any positive influences on him! When man did not repent with so many positive influences on him, how the hell (!) is he going to repent without them? He no longer has either the motivation or the means to repent. No wonder he does not repent even after suffering all those horrible pains! He does not, because he simply can not. He has got into a vicious cycle from which he just cannot come out. While on earth, there is a possibility of his coming out. The means are available. But in hell, the means to come out of the vicious cycle are just not available. The tipping point has been crossed. And the result is that he is trapped, and trapped for eternity.

The second thing to note from the conversation and from the passages from the book of Revelation quoted above, is that if men don’t want to repent, then they will not repent no matter what! If they are sensitive to God and respond positively to his dealings with them, they have more than enough information on this earth to take appropriate action right away! But they leave it for "tomorrow" and as we all know, tomorrow never comes. The man requests Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them so that they will not also come to this place of torment. Abraham answers that "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them." Now we can add "and Jesus and Muhammad, with even stronger words!" The man feels that if they see the miracle of someone from the dead going to them, they will repent. But Abraham answers him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." If they wanted to listen, more than enough warnings were there. If they don’t want to listen they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead. It’s not a question of paucity of information. Besides Moses and the Prophets, we even have Jesus now, with far more credibility, and far clearer warnings. And Muhammad too, with the Quran’s repetitious and stronger warnings. It’s all a question of whether they are willing to listen to God or not. If they want to, there is more than enough information available; if they don’t want to, no amount of additional information will be enough. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad were expected to spend too much time in trying to convince unbelievers who were unwilling to believe. They were just to deliver the message and move on. That’s also why in the end, the book of Revelation says, "Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy" (Rev 22:11) and the Quran says in 18:29, "the truth is from your Lord: let him then who will, believe; and let him who will, be an unbeliever. But for the offenders we have got ready the fire whose smoke shall enwrap them." Anyway, this is a "possible" explanation for the eternity question of heaven and hell." Let’s move on and come to my own belief.

So, rather than in reincarnation, I am more inclined to believe in the Biblical/ Quranic eternal heaven and hell. But even that too is a loosely held belief. Frankly for me, it doesn’t make any difference here on earth, if you mean business with God. Because in the above table, it’s not my belief (column 1) which will determine my fate, but how I have lived my life (column 2). In any of the cases of columns 1 and 3, the consequences of leading a righteous kind of life are good and positive, leading to a better state after death, and the consequences of leading a sinful kind of life are bad and negative, leading to a worse state after death. So I am more concerned with how I live my life here and now, rather than what belief I hold. If I have lived life the way God wants me to live and if the Biblical/ Quranic belief is true, I go to an eternal heaven; and if the belief of reincarnation is true, I get a better "next life". If I have not lived my life the way God wants me to live and if the Biblical/ Quranic belief is true, I go to an eternal hell; and if the belief of reincarnation is true, I get a worse "next life". So either way, I am better off concentrating on living righteously and in freedom, and not waste my time arguing about which is the better belief system or mustering up supporting or contradicting evidence for or against any belief, as many others do. I’d rather move on to the other, more important and interesting things. We have spent a lot of time on this section, because I have had to do so, since I disagree with the belief of reincarnation. But naturally, if I disagree with something said in the highly revered Bhagavad Geeta, I need to have solid reasons, and need to have covered all important aspects of the issue.

But one more little thing before we move on to the other, more important and interesting things. If I find the belief of reincarnation questionable, then what about moksha itself, the goal and purpose of life according to Hinduism? Moksha is supposed to be freedom or liberation from the cycle of births and deaths. And if I find the belief in such a cycle itself questionable, then obviously the concept of achieving moksha i.e. of achieving liberation from such a cycle becomes irrelevant and logically, I should not be much interested in moksha either. And I am not! And strangely and interestingly, there is really no problem with that! And even more interestingly, it is precisely that state which is supposed to lead to moksha! Because strangely, those who desire moksha will not achieve moksha until they are free of the desire for moksha itself! Moksha is achieved by being free of all desires and that includes the desire for moksha itself! Says verses 2:71-72, "A person who gives up all desires, who moves about untouched, without possesiveness or egoism, he attains peace. This is the state of Brahman, Partha. One is not bewildered on achieving this. Being situated in this, even at the time of death, he attains liberation in divine consciousness." Says verse 2:55, "When a person gives up all desires in his mind, when he is satisfied in the self, by the self, then he is called a person of steady intellect." Says 5:3, "Know that the renouncer does not have aversion nor desire, who is free from dualities, he is certainly in happiness and completely liberated from bondage, mighty-armed one." Says 5:28, "the (internally) silent person whose sense organs, mind, and intellect's movement is towards liberation, without desire, fear, and anger; they are certainly always liberated." A desire for moksha will not lead you to moksha; doing the things that lead to moksha will lead you to moksha, even if you don’t desire moksha (or have not have even heard of the word or the idea of moksha). As the Varaha Upanishad puts it in II:15-16, "When that knowledge which dispels the idea that this body alone is Atman, arises firmly in one’s mind as was before the knowledge that this body alone is Atman, then that person, even though he does not desire Moksha, gets it." So give up all desire for moksha in the future. In fact the Niralamba Upanishad in verse 30 calls devotion to moksha as bondage: "Bondage is to plan to devote oneself exclusively to moksha."

The important thing to gain is freedom in the here and now, a freedom from all desires and all fruitive action, the state of being a jivanmukta (see Appendix 2 for the description of what a jivanmukta is, as found in the Upanishads). In fact the Upanishads give far more importance to becoming a jivanmukta. Moksha is a mental construct belonging to the future, being a jivanmukta is a real state of being to be achieved now. Says the Atma Upanishad in II:29-30, "The ideas, ‘it is’ and ‘it is not’, as regards Reality, are only ideas in the intellect. They do not pertain to the eternal Reality. So bondage and liberation are set up by Maya and do not pertain to the Self. In the supreme Truth as in the sky, impartite, inactive, quiescent, flawless, unstained and non-dual where is room for mental construction?" If you become a jivanmukta now, you will attain moksha after death (if reincarnation is the truth, that is), even if you don’t desire moksha or have never even heard of it. "Whosoever wins absoluteness while alive continues to be absolute even after death" says Adhyatma Upanishad v.16. Thus even the desire for moksha is a hindrance to achieving moksha! "Bondage is by impressions, Moksha is their destruction – you give them up as well as the desire for Moksha" says Muktika Upanishad II-ii-68. "Liberation is not on the top of the sky; not in the nether world; not on the earth. The dwindling of mind in which all desires dry up is held to be liberation. With the thought, within, ‘let me have liberation’ the mind springs up; this worldly bondage is firm in the mind agitated with thought" (Annapurna Upanishad II:23-24).

So I am not really interested in moksha itself, the goal and purpose of life according to Hinduism! And there is no problem with that! After all in the "realized" state, "There is neither death nor birth; none is bound, none aspires. There is neither seeker after liberation nor any liberated; this indeed is the ultimate Truth" (Avadhuta Upanishad v. 11). "All is the one supreme Sky. What is liberation? What is bondage? This is the great Brahman, established mightily, with extended form; duality has vanished far from It; be you, yourself, the Self alone." (Annapurna Upanishad II-38). Says the Mandukya Upanishad in II-32, "There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth." So also the Tripura Tapini Upanishad in V-13: "There is no restriction, no origin; None in bondage: none who strives; None seeks liberation; aye, none Liberated – this is truth." Says the Maitreya Upanishad III-22b, "I am beyond liberation, I am liberated and I am always devoid of final emancipation." Moksha itself is ultimately only a mental construct of Maya, not Reality!

The important thing to note now is that we need not waste our time arguing about which is the better belief system (reincarnation or eternal heaven and hell) or waste our time mustering up supporting or contradicting evidence for or against any belief, as many do. We should rather move on to the other, more important and interesting things. There are plenty of good things in the Bhagavad Geeta, very good things, which can be made use of whichever belief system you hold. Much of what is said in the rest of the Geeta, especially that which concerns practical day-to-day life, does not require a belief in reincarnation, and can be made use of even if you don’t subscribe to such a belief. They relate more to how we live while here on earth, enjoying both freedom and righteousness. If you are a Christian or a Muslim, you can continue with your existing beliefs about a Day of Judgment and an eternal heaven and hell, plus derive benefits from the plenty of other good stuff in the Bhagavad Geeta. To which now, we turn.