Hinduism's False Philosophies




There is no single religion in India, but rather a combination of related religions, representing different facets of Vedic tradition – that is being called as “SANATANA DHARMA” (Eternal Religion, as claimed by its adherents). The term “HINDUISM” however, is generally used by European Indologists to describe the same.


            Right at the outset, it is essential to point out that “the vocation of Hinduism is to proclaim to the world the efficacy of ‘religious experience’ (ANUBHAVA)1. Hence, so long as a religious path flows from one’s personal “Religious Sense”, emanating from within and thus leading to peace and equanimity, it has its place in the Hindu fabric of life and religion.2 The best example of this is seen as to how Hinduism incorporated even the Heterodox Schools of Buddhism and Jainism in its fold, despite they being silent on spiritual and metaphysical realities such as soul and God. The only rationale being that these systems even though atheistic (Nastikavada), flow from a certain “religious sense” springing from purely ethical living. This proves that the very foundation of Hinduism is “IMMANENTISM” which is also visible explicitly through the Mantricism of the Vedic sages (Rshs) who were the progenitors of the Vedic Dharma. At once, the truth received by the sages in their state of Trance is considered to be Infallible (Aparokshanubhuti) and Unchanging (Shashvatam), for they claimed to have received these words by a direct hearing (Shravana), being endowed with a supreme intuition as “Seers” (Sadhunam) of eternal truth.


            In this age of Modernism, when many people unquestionably are swallowing Immanentism in its various forms, thus equating the intuitive inspiration of Indian seers to the infallible inspiration of the Prophets and Evangelists of sacred Scripture. It is our purpose then, to indicate and expose the hidden errors of Hinduism, certain under the disguise of good. To unveil the deceptions of the devil, who appears as the angel of light and spreads his darkness, so that the true light of the Catholic Faith may shine forth, dispelling every darkness of lies, errors and sophisms. 


2.  Examining the comprehensive doctrinal traditions of Hinduism and their sources:


1st Source: THE VEDAS(SHRUTI): The ‘Veda’ meaning “knowledge” is the most primary of sacred scriptures for Hinduism. As aforementioned, the sages of old are believed to have been revealed the eternal truths, who transcribed it into the most perfect human language, Sanskrit.3 Hence, the Veda remains the central tenet of virtually all Hindu sects and traditions. The Veda ‘emanates’ from the “mystical hearing” (shravana) of the seers as “the secret knowledge of the SELF and the mystery of the gods, the esoteric wisdom that flows from the Ultimate Reality.4

The Vedic literature comprises of he RGVEDA(Rituals for animal sacrifices, birth and marriage rituals etc.,), YAJURVEDA (liturgical injunctions for priests and the invocations), SAMAVEDA (chants with fixed melodies and metres), ATHARVAVEDA (magical prayers to cast spells, curses, love-charms). The Rgveda is the oldest of all and it reflects Polytheistic religion mainly concerned with the propitiation of divinities (gods) who were considered to be “custodians of the cosmic order.”5


            The Vedic gods are clearly personifications of natural phenomena to whom sacrifices were offered and invocations expressing the past exploits of the deity and the present offering now gives a new strength to the deity to repeat his feats inorder to aid the one who sacrifices. According to Mahabharata, there are 33, 333 Hindu deities! Which are multiplied a thousandfold...


            2nd Source: SMRTI means “Memory” and unlike Sruti does not in theory rank as ‘eternal truth.’ “Smrti” is what is ‘remembered’ by the Seers as demonstration of the Esoteric truths revealed in the Veda, whereby the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) assuming diverse forms demonstrates ethical and religious truths. The “Smrti” is comprised of Dharmasastras (Law books); the Puranas (mythological works extolling various deities); the Epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata). The Smrti marks another turning point in Polytheistic Hinduism whereby, some deities attain undisputed pre-eminence in the pantheon of gods. The Smrti literature basically elaborates on the manifestation of the Hindu Triad – Brahma, Visnu and Siva.


3rd Source: UPANISADS form the end of the Vedas and so, are called “VEDANTA” (Ved + anta), its purpose being the dual search for the eternal Self (Atman) within man and the eternal ground of the Universe outside him (Saccidanandam Anantam Brahman). The Upanisads indicate the MONISTIC doctrine, esoteric in character, expressed in the dictum – “TAT TVAM ASI” – THOU ART THAT- the identity between Atman and Brahman. The following verse of Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika, iii, 6 expresses this Pantheistic identification of the individual self with the Ultimate Reality (which can be taken as God):

“As when the jars are broken, the space they contained becomes one again with all space, so is the relation of the individual soul with Brahman.”


4th Source: BHAGAVADGITA is the part of the Mahabharata, where Krsna,  considered as the incarnation of Mahavisnu exhorts Arjuna “to uphold righteousness (dharma) and combat unrighteousness(Adharma).” He further expounds the doctrines of Immortality of the soul dwellinginto countless bodies as changing outworn garments to new ones – Bh.Gita ch.II. This brings us to the doctrine of Rebirth. He further argues for a Self-discipline in which a person does his duty without any self-interest(Nishkamakarma)- “Duty for duty’s sake” – A higher Stoicism! The Central doctrine of the Gita is “To be unmoved before success or failure, to be devoid of all attachments and to realize in meditation, of having acted in accordance with one’s conscience.”6[Similar to Kant’s Postulates of Practical reason].

Krsna finally says”If anyone sees me in all things and all things in me, I am not lost to him and he is not lost to me.”7  “He who at his last hour, dies remembering me, goes assuredly into my being, becoming One with me.”8[PANTHEISTIC IDENTITY].


            5TH Source: PURANAS teach that God is transcendent and hence, beyond human understanding. Through his incomprehensible creative ability (Maya), he expands himself into the Universe, which he pervades and which is his own outward appearance, his Immanence. His creation is thought to be him, therefore he himself is the world. This idea is expressed in these two verses:


            “Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman”(Everything is Brahman)9

            “Sarvam vyapakam characharam iti Vasudevam”(Vasudeva pervades everything of the universe)10


The entire Bhagavatam echoes this ABSOLUTE PANTHEISM including other puranas as well.


            6th Source: TANTRISM claims to show, a new way to the Highest goal and bases itself upon mystic speculations concerning divine creative energy (Shakti)- A method of conquering transcendent powers (praeternatural) and realizing oneness with Siva, Kali and other spirits (called as Param Tatva – Highest Principle) by Yogic and ritualistic disciplines- in part magical and orgiastic, through sublimation of sexual energy.11 In Tantrism, concentration is intended to evoke an “internal image” (prana) of the deity and to resuscitate the powers inherent in it so that the symbol changes into “mental experience”. Through the mantras such as “Hum, Hrim, Klam” which are indispensable means of entering into contact with the spirits of Kali, thereby transcending normal mundane existence. As soon as the union of Shakti (Supreme energy personified as Siva or Kali) and Purusha (human soul) becomes permanent, wonderful visions and spiritual powers are endowed to the Tantric who being emancipated pursues worldly objectives involving magic or medicine.12




Since the beginning of the 19th century, several attempts have been made to prove that Religion did have a beginning, and a series of theories have been developed.


A distinguished mythologist, Andrew Lang, through the discoveries of Howitt, in South Eastern Autralia defends the possibility of primitive man, from the consideration of the Cosmic facts, being capable of arriving at a knowledge of a Supreme Being, as Creator, preserver of the world and Law-giver to man. Lang contends that this Being is first apprehended prior to the formation of the explicit idea of a soul. He points to a series of primitive peoples, who had among them the veneration of such a Supreme Being, demonstrated beyond doubt, even before the advent of Europeans and missionaries.13 The conclusion of Lang’s book asserts that the foremost mark of the Religion of primitive people is its fundamental MONOTHEISM and so, Polytheism is only a luxuriant superabundance of later corruption based on moral decadence.14


            Based on this established thesis, we can make a CRITICAL EVALUATION of the sources of Hindu Doctrines, which depict a certain development seen taking place ranging from the Vedic period down to the Polytheistic trends f devotionalism all ending up into the PANTHEISTIC mould of Religion and Philosophy.


            i) There are seen two levels of Hinduism, namely :


a) The High level of Religious and Philosophical Hinduism: is a theoritical lucubration that parts from the inability of its intelligentia to conceive how a Transcendent Universal Creator can create the universe out of nothing. From such an inability, they denied the personal nature of the Godhead and its Entitative distinction from nature and individual souls; thus, postulating a MONISTIC reality of nature and men, to be merely processional manifestation of the Absolute Monistic Immanent Principle, the SACCIDANANDA, SHANTAM, ANANTAM BRAHMAN. [GNOSTICISM].


b) Popular Hinduism: is a lower level of religion of the masses consisting of gods and deities invoked, which are myriads of demons and evil spirits, who are propitiated with sacrifices, Tantric practices and disciplines.


There is a glaring contradiction between these two levels with the High level of Hinduism culminating with EGOCENTRISM, under the disguise of “SELF-REALIZATION” – “I AM BRAHMAN”(Aham Brahmasmi). And the Popular Hinduism results into the perverseness and vainness of reasoning, thus exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for images made like to man, birds, beasts, creeping things.15


ii) The manner of Vedic revelation claimed by the seers was aurally received... emanating from Brahman in the form of words. Hence, revelation given to the seers is accepted “apriori” by Shraddha(blind faith) – in accordance to the exigencies of our religious sense(Anubhava). There is no judgement of Credibility required prior to the Act of faith.


iii) ‘Faith’(Shraddha) in Hinduism is the inner attitude – a condition for the realization of Atman(Self) being Brahman. This is IMMANENTISM. Faith is something very SUBJECTIVE, a matter one’s own religious experience, which is considered to be all-comprehensive irrespective of names and forms(namarupa). Hence, faith has no intellectual content, moved by the will, nor is it a deliberate and elicited act, but purely emotional, full of holy sentiments : Shraddha iti Bhava! – means “Faith is, where there is sentiment!”


iv) The concept of “Revelation”in Hinduism too is “MONISTIC PANTHEISM, whereby the Universal Spiritual Principle, BRAHMAN, immanent in all things, yet itself devoid of any names or forms, assumes various forms ‘apparently’ inorder to uphold truth and vanquish untruth – “Dharmasanstapanartaya sambhavami yugeyuge.”16


v) The concept of “Grace”(Kripa) in Hinduism depicted by its sources, is purely ‘natural’ because it is the result of human effort (Sadhana) through the control of the senses(indriyadamana)17 Stoicist practices as well as Magical and occult practices through the sublimation of sexual energy as seen earlier in one of its sources namely TANTRISM.


            Having evaluated a few concepts depicted by the sources of Doctrinal Traditions of Hinduism, I now turn to its Philosophy which consists of Six main Systems constituting each in turn the knowledge that leads to Cognition and Liberation. I shall examine the main features of these systems (Darsanas) and critically evaluate them in the light of Thomism. Following St. Thomas, I shall state the various schools of Indian Philosophy, as objections classified under the main features of Perception; World; God and the Self, known in Indian terminology as Pratyaksa, Samsara,Brahman/Ishvara, and Atman.




A) HOW DO WE KNOW ? The Problem of Knowledge/Perception


            Obj 1: (Nyaya-Vaisesika) It seems that the being of the external world, although necessarily known through the mind, is in no way dependant upon it. The truth or falsity of Knowledge is dependant upon a pragmatic criterion: “it is true if it works” and it can be determined by practical verification.18


Reply:- Firstly, in Ia Q.84 art 6(reply to obj 1)St.Thomas interpreting St. Augustine, affirms that we need the light of Active Intellect in order to arrive at the entire trut and hence, we must not expect the entire truth from the senses alone. Knowledge, therefore, is the activity of the whole man i.e., it comes from senses as well as it is a spiritual act of the intellect.


Secondly, the pragmatic criterion held by the Nyaya though holds true, if it works, nevertheless, it is incomplete – especially, in the case of  



Obj2: (Samkhya-Yoga) It seems that we never perceive natural objects directly, only pictures or representations of them, constructed by the mind. Knowledge is therefore, the state or modification of the Empirical self, through the modification of the mind, which mediates by taking on a form corresponding to the object. Hence, we know the object by this form and not the object itself.19

Reply:- The error lies at the very start, i.e., that representations of objects are constructed ‘apriori’ by the mind. In Ia.Q.84., art7, St. Thomas asserts that the soul understands nothing without the phantasm, which is a kind of intermediary between the individual object directly perceived by the sense and the true Universal idea attainable by the intellect. Hence, the phantasms or representations are derived from sensible things and so, are not constructed by the mind. Hence, in Ia.Q.86., art 1, St. Thomas says that our intellect understands the Universal directly through the intelligible species (abstracted from individual matter) and indirectly, the Singular is represented by the Phantasm.


Obj3: a) (Kumarila school of Mimansa) – It seems that for knowledge to be valid, it should not only correspond to the given object, but should also contain an element of ‘novelty’ – signifying an addition to our knowledge. And in this sense, knowledge may arise without a corresponding object, even when that object is no more than a quality or relation.20


            Reply: In Ia Q.84 art 6, St. Thomas asserting that “the principle of knowledge is in the senses,” answers a similar issue as Kumarila raised in Obj 3 of the article that Intellectual knowledge extends beyond sensible things. St. Thomas replies to this objection by saying that sensitive knowledge is not the entire cause of intellectual knowledge. Nevertheless, knowledge cannot arise without Phantasms that arise from the corresponding object (at the beginning and end of the process of knowledge) and this assures the objectivity of knowledge by preserving the continuity between the external object and the intellect. Hence, no room for novelty to arise without a corresponding object as held by Kumarila.


Obj 3 b) (Prabhakara School of Mimamsa)- It seems knowledge never involves a reference to anything that is not actually given. For instance, an object that is seen yellow by a jaundiced person. Each of them is valid, so far as it goes. Hence, discovery of a so-called ‘error’ only means a step in advancing knowledge, which means, in the single unit of knowledge there is no error at all. The so-called ‘error’ is only partial knowledge, for human knowledge is always partial in one sense or another.21        


Reply:- Primarily, ‘error’ can never advance in knowledge, for error is evil, which is the absence of due good – Ia.Q.49.Art 1.

Secondly, as St. Thomas says in Ia.Q.17, Art 4 that Truth and error are contraries. For as ‘Truth’ implies an adequate apprehension of a thing, so falsity implies the contrary. Hence, one cannot be identified with another nor taken as synonymous.


Obj 4: (Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracharya)- It seems that subject and object are as opposed to each other as light and darkness i.e., Pure Consciousness (Shuddha Vijana) appearing as “my consciousness” and “consciousness of the object” in ordinary experience. Yet, the properties of fone are superimposed on the other. The false appearance is a positive, presented entity characterized neither as existent (because it is sublated when illusion is corrected) nor as non-existent (because it is given as much as the real is) – Sadasadvilaksana. Hence, the false is indescribable as either being or non-being(Anirvachaniya)22                                                             


Reply:- The very first presumption of the Advaitins is erroneous that the subject and object are opposed to each other and much more erroneous is to assume the properties of one are superimposed on the other. For, the “Objectum” is a thing in as much as it is known, by a certain faculty, and the “Subjectum” is the one who receives the knowledge. Hence, the object and the subject are distinct from each other. Being so, in sensible knowledge, the ‘object’ acts on the ‘subject’ and the subject grasps theobject through the sensible species. In Ia.Q.17.art 2., St. Thomas says that,” There cannot be falsity in sense, it is actuated by the object itself except if the sense is defective. Whereas, there can be falsity in judgement. Secondly, illusion is an evoked image by a present sensation – a false image in the imagination. As in the example given by the advaitins (of illusory serpent later discovered to be a rope), the illusory serpent is an evoked image, which is obviously false, because it is non-existent.




Obj 1: [Nyaya-Vaisheshika) It seems that the being of the world although necessarily known through the mind, is in no way dependant on it. If all the minds in the universe should cease to be, even then the objective world would continue to exist.23


Reply:- The Nyaya-Vaisheshika tends to hold the common-sense view of the world. It holds the correspondence theory of truth – knowledge is true, which is faithful to its object.


Obj 2: (Samkhya-Yoga) It seems that Matter (Prakrti) is the starting point as  the universal substrate of all phenomena, capable of indefinite activity – it constitutes the efficient and material cause of the world. Matter, though absolutely One is composed of three essences or gunas namely sattva, rajas and tamas. Hence, the world is nothing but the inevitable progression of these three essences.24


Reply:- This view is materialistic, whereby matter is held to be efficient and material cause of the world. And its composition of three essences and their effect on the world as well as on human activity makes it FATALISTIC. This conception of the world, emphasizing the dualism between matter(Prakrti) and Self(Purusha) is the same as errors of Montpellier’s Vitalism, whereby the living being is posited as a substance distinct from the body. Matter and life are placed side by side.25


Besides, by making ‘matter’ supreme and evolving by itself is also like the Mechanistic conception, by which the Final Cause is denied, as a philosophical apriori.26                                                    


Obj3 a) (Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracharya) It seems that all diversity of the world is an illusion(mithya). The ‘Real’ (Sat) is only that of the Eternal Being and Brahman, is the sole reality of that type. Infact, the One and the same Brahman comes to appear, both as the world and as the individual Self, giving rise to the illusion of the world. The ‘Unreal’ is that of absolute nothing. The world, in all its diversity is neither real nor unreal(sadasadvilaksana).27                       


Reply:- At the very outset, the Advaitic position is Pantheistic identification between the Ultimate Reality and the world, termed under the disguise of “appearance of Brahman as world and individual self.” In fact, this is a much Involved Pantheism.To argue within the Advaitic thesis itself, we find inconsistency as follows:-


If the Ultimate Reality(Brahman) alone is real and everything else for that matter is Brahman, then there is a severe logical inconsistency in holding the world to be illusory, which infact is nothing but Brahman, which alone is claimed to be real.


Obj3 b) But the Advaitin justifies thus – It seems that there are three levels of reality namely – i) The Empirical level (Vyavaharikasatta): whereby the objects such as ‘rope’ are empirically so, because although by no means permanent, they endure in some form, so long as we view them from the standpoint of common experience.


ii) The Apparent level (Pratibhasikasatta): illusory level – whereby the being of the serpent is seen in a rope.


iii) The Transcendental level (Paramarthikasatta): Brahman is real, in the only true sense of the term.


Reply:- The Advaita fabricates its own levels of reality. Examining these three levels we critique as follows:


i) According to the Advaita, the Empirical level is an objective reality, for ‘it endures in some form, as long as ‘we’ view it from the standpoint of common experience’ and this leads to SUBJECTIVISM. In Ia.Q.84. Art 6. St. Thomas asserts that “Our intellectual knowledge is derived from sensible things.” Thus, reality is not what ‘I’ view it as, but reality is ‘out there’ independent of whether I view it or not.


ii) The Apparent level is the level of illusion and therefore, can be classed among errors and hence, it cannot be confusedly associated as ‘reality.’


iii) The Transcendental level is nothing but the Pantheistic identification between Brahman and the individual self (Atman), culminating in human egocentricity.





Obj 1: (Advaita Vedanta) ‘On God’ -  It seems that nothing is truly real except the Ineffable Being (Nirguna Brahman). But the same ineffable Being with the falsity of illusion (Maya), due to the ignorance of the individual soul appears as Qualified Being (Saguna Brahman) such as Visnu, Shiva etc., the Creator of the Universe and ‘Maya’ is his power that helps him to create it. God, is thus, Isvara (full of attributes) who becomes the material as well as efficient cause of the universe, like a great Magician, who brings forth out of Himself, the whole spectacle of the universe, without being deluded by the spectacle.28


Reply:- The above distinction between the ineffable Being and Being with qualites is the consequence of the fabrication of three levels of reality by Sankaracharya, which have been refuted in the previous section. The notion of God is very Pantheistic whereby, he brings forth the universe out of himself.


Furthermore, as St. Thomas affirms in Contra Gentiles Bk.I ch.17 that God is not matter because the Efficient Cause and matter do not coincide. And since, it belongs to God to be the First Efficient Cause of things, therefore, He cannot be the Material Cause.


In Contra Gentiles, Bk II, ch16, pt.2, St. Thomas establishes that “if a thng is an effect produced by God, either something exists before it or not. If not, God produces some effect from ‘nothing’ pre-existing.”


Obj 2: (Dvaitadvaita of Madhvacharya) God is really a distinct being from everything else. He is the Creator, in the sense that he moulds forms out of the material cause, in which he also makes everything.


Reply:- In Ia.Q45. art 1., St.Thomas answers the similar objection(Obj 1 of the article). In the corpus, St. Thomas says that, “To create is to make something from nothing” and not out of Material Cause (as claimed by Madhvacharya). In his reply to Obj.3, St. Thomas explains that “when anything is said to be made ‘from’ nothing,  this preposition ‘from’(ex) does not signify Material Cause, but only ‘Order’. But if the negation includes the preposition, then the ‘Order’ is denied.


Obj 3: (Visistadvaita of Ramanujacharya) It seems that God is the supreme power that is not absolutely separate from ourselves but a being with whom we can experience initimacy. ‘God’ may be thought in three different ways – a) in its pure state as knowledge or ‘Omniscience’; b) as that which brings forth plurality of selves and material things; c) as ‘effect’ that of which these selves and things are ‘aspects.’ Everything has Brahman as its ‘Self’ or ‘Substrate.’29


Reply:- Ramanuja’s conception of God tends towards Pantheistic view of Brahman, though with attributes – as he says, “brings forth the plurality of selves as an effect...” St. Thomas in Ia.Q.44.Art 1 says that, God is the essentially Self-subsisting Being. Therefore, all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation. Hence, all things which are diversified by the diverse participation of being, so as to be more or less perfect are caused by One First Being as Rom 11/36 says, “Of Him and by Him and in Him are all things.”


Obj 4: (Madhva’s conception of relation between God and the Soul) It seems that the relation between God and the soul is that of ‘absolute difference’, combining the two perspectives into a vision of ‘identity-in-difference’ of a world whose denizens enjoy an autonomy compatible with a devotional recognition that their existence and significance are due to a Being that thought, “May I be many” – “Ahameva Anekam Tattastu!”


Reply:- Madhvacarya’s conception emphasizing the absolute difference between God and the soul, appears as coming closer to Christian revelation. Not really so. For, his vision of “identity-in-difference” is mixed with the Pantheistic notion of the Supreme Being thinking, “May I be one”. St. Thomas in Ia.Q.3.Art8, condemns the three errors of those who say that – i) God is the World-soul; ii) that God is the formal principle of all things(Almaricians); iii) that, God was primary matter(David of Dinant).


Since, God cannot enter into the composition of anything either as a formal or material principle because God is the first Efficient Cause. And being so, God acts primarily and essentially and so, He cannot be part of the compound. Hence, Godis the being of all things, as their efficient and exemplar cause, but not as being their essence, as held by Madhvacharya in saying, “May I be many.” {St. Thomas’ reply to obj 1 of Ia.Q.3.Art8}


Obj 5: [Ramanuja’s conception of relation between God and the Soul] – From two points of view – i) From above, ie., Pure Brahman – we see the souls as ‘emanations’ or ‘modes of a single substance’; ii) From below, ie., from our position as active agents in the world, Brahman appears as a remote cause.30


Reply:- Pantheistic Conception as has been refuted in Reply 3.


Obj 6: [Ramanuja’s conception of the ‘World’] It seems that, the World is the body of God (Brahman)31                                                


Reply:- Ramanuja’s contention of the ‘World as the body of Brahman’ is a false conception. On the contrary, Jn4/24 says, ‘God is a Spirit’ – St. Thomas in Ia.Q3.Art 1 says, “It is absolutely true that God is not a body – The world is the composition of matter and form, while God is Pure Act. Therefore, it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form – impossible for God to have a body and much less to having the world as his body. In Ia.Q.3.art 8, St. Thomas asserts that God, the First Cause, rules all things without commingling with them.




According to the Bhagavadgita, ‘Dharma’(Moral law) governs people’s behaviour according to their stage of life and their Caste affiliation. The central message of the Gita is that, ‘One should perform his action in total detachment, with no end or purpose’ – Nishkamakarma – “Duty for duty’s sake” – by which, the action will be pure, free from the bonds of desire, not even the desire for heavenly glory – “Karmanyevadika raste, mafaleshukadachana” – Gita, chapter 2.


Moral behaviour is an important means for liberation (Moksha), which is the goal of life – Freedom from the cycle of births and deaths (Transmigration). That ‘detached action’ (Nishkamakarma) resulting from virtuous life either guarantees a better rebirth, enforcing man towards self-realization or becomes a ‘priliminary’ to the acquisition of the knowledge of the Self (Gnosis).32                                                                                         

Reply:- We shall first refute the morality of “Duty for duty’s sake” put forward by the Gita and then the notions of Transmigration and Rebirth.


a) Duty for duty’s sake:- St. Thomas in Ia,Iiae.Q.I.art.1, affirms that the ‘End’ is the principle in all human operations. Therefore, it belongs to man to do everything for an end. For whatever actions proceed from a power, are caused by that power in accordance with the nature of its object. But the object of the will is the end and the good. Therefore, all human actions must be for an end. Hence, the dictum of the Gita, “Duty for duty’s sake” is irrational in the natural order and much more in the Supernatural order, whereby God elevated man to supernatural life by His grace. The end and perfection of the human intellect lies in the vision of Divine Essence, in which alone man’s happiness consists(Q.3.art8).


b) The Hindu conception of Transmigration is not only irrational but also an impossibility as shown by St. Thomas in Contra Gentiles Bk 2, ch.83 – The theory is refutable on the fact that “One human soul is an intellectual substance united to one body as its form.”


The Hindu conception of Rebirth holds that the soul can assume any kind of body from the lower grade of vegetative life to the celestial beings determined on the type of actions performed.


St. Thomas refutes again in Contra Gentiles Bk 2, Q.83, pt.10 – “It is natural to every form to be united to its proper matter, otherwise, that which is made of form and matter would be something preternatural. Hence, it is absurd to hold the union of human soul in a vegetative or sensitive matter. The Hindu conception lacks clear distinction between vegetative, animal and human souls.




            In the modern atmosphere of “Religious Liberty”, we can ask an intelligent question – “Whether Sacred Scripture confirms or the contrary, opposes false religions ?” So far we have refuted the doctrinal traditions of Hinduism. Having done so, let’s turn to the voice of the Lord God in Sacred Scripture:




* The Lord God severely enjoins his people to remain faithful to the True Religion and to avoid the worship of false gods – Dt 13/1-18.

* Rigorous chastisements were mandated against the violators of these precepts – pain of sword and of fire – Dt 17/2-7.

*All those chastisements were faithfully applied by all the good judges, kings and prophets – Jos 23/6-8; 24/14-15; Judg6/25-26; 3Kgs 18/40; 4Kgs 10/18-31; 23/5-24; Neh9/37; 13/16-18; 1 Mac 2/24-25; 9/73;  Dan 14/21 etc.




* Our Blessed Lord used ‘moral force’ with public blame or temporal chastisement – Jn 15/24; Mt 23/13; Lk 19/44; Mt 21/33-46.

* He predicted Eternal Chastisement for those who refused to believe the Gospel preached to them – Mk 16/16; Apoc 2/20-23.

* St. Peter scolding false prophets – 2 Pet 2/17, 22

* St. Paul rebuked Elymas and the false prophets who tried to turn away proconsul Sergius from the Faith – Acts 13/8-11; 2Cor 13/10; Gal 5/12.

* St. John called some false doctors, seducers – 2Jn 1/10,11.

* St. Jude rebukes false doctors – Jude 1/12-13.


From the above Scripture passages, we see that the false religions and their propagators are severely condemned by God directly in the Old Testament with human authorities to carry it out. And in the New Testament, the Coercive authority with the threat of eternal damnation rests with the Apostles and the Catholic Church.




I shall now indicate the errors of Hinduism condemned by the Church Magisterium in their different forms manifested in the West, which perhaps had their roots in the Eastern Philosophies, religion and mysticism. St. Augustine once said that, “Heretics think false things about God and call it their faith.”


i) The most prominent error of Hinduism is PANTHEISM (as demonstrated earlier), condemned by the Church in all its forms:-


a) Dz 1664 : Condemnation of ONTOLOGISM of Malebranche by Pope Leo XIII – applicable to Hinduism in holding that “Created things are in God as the part is in the Whole .... but in an infinite absolutely simple Whole......(as held by ADVAITA VEDANTA).


b) Dz 1701: by Pope Pius IX – applicable to ADVAITA VEDANTA and the THEISTIC  VEDANTA SCHOOLS in holding that “God is identical with nature and souls....”


c) Dz 1782: That One, living and true God is indistinct from all things – MONISTIC SCHOOL OF VEDANTA.


d) Dz 1803: applicable to Monistic and Dualistic schools of SANKARACHARYA AND MADHVACHARYA.


e) Dz 1804: applicable to special forms of Pantheism – that of ADVAITA AND DVAITADVAITA.


f) Dz 1650: applicable to Hindu “FATALISM” as the natural consequence of the theory of Karma and Rebirth.


g) Dz 1702: against TRANSMIGRATION – METEMPSHCHOSIS (Condemned by the Synod of Constantinople, 543).


h) Dz 2211: against the Hindu conception of Creation – in denying creation out of ‘nothing’ [All Vedantic systems].


ii) The second error of Hinduism is  IMMANENTISM – Condemned by Pope St. Pius X in PASCENDI (as critiqued in the earlier section in the analysis of the terms ‘Shraddha’ and ‘Anubhava’).





We have already seen St. Thomas asserting that “Truth and error are contraries” and hence cannot be identified one with another (Ia.Q17.art 4). Furthermore, the element of truth which may exist in false doctrines is not the soul of the doctrine but the servant of error.33


This can be very well be applied to Hinduism, about which by indicating errors in its philosophy and theology, I have attempted to prove it a “FALSE RELIGION” by the very fact of the principle given by St. Thomas that “Truth and error being contraries cannot co-exist.”


St. Thomas in II.IIae Q.11, art.3., says that, “Religious error and its propagation are very pernicious evils to the Church and to souls, hence the Church’s strict right to stop the manifestation of false religions...”


Hence, to conclude, it can be seen that within the Hinduistic conceptual backdrop, it is not possible to have a genuine religion. There is no sense to worship any god or deity, if one’s inner self is identical with Brahman, which is nothing but PANTHEISM and on the other hand, POLYTHEISM, which is nothing but the perversion of the human mind as well as of the moral and social order, furthering the decadence in terms of spiritism, witchcraft, occult practices and other superstitious beliefs. And these are the signs of a FALSE RELIGION both n terms of natural as well as supernatural order.


1 “History of Indian Philosophy” by Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Vol I pp. 3-4.

2 Ibid., p.6

3 Encyclopaedia Britannica , p.529

4 “Hinduism” by Zaehner, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962., p.12

5 Ibid., Encyclopaedia  p.530

6 SrimadBhagavadGita II.47

7 Ibid., VIII. 30

8 Ibid., VIII.5

9 Brhadaranyaka Upanisad skandha III.iii.6

10 SrimadBhagavatam, skandha viii.ii.4

11 Encyclopaedia Britannica p.543.

12 Ibid., p.543

13 “Primitive Revelation: by Rev. Wilhelm Schmidt S.V.D. Herder & Co., pp.116ff.

14 Ibid., p.137ff

15 Rom1:18-23

16 Bhgita II.28

17 Ibid., xvii, 56,58

18 Nyaya Sutras of Gautama I.i – On Pratyaksapramana

19 Samkhya Sutras of Isvarakrsna by M. Hiriyana Sut I.ii

20 Mimamsa Sastra of Kumarila Bhatta & Prabhakara Bhasya, Motilal Banarsidas & Co.  1955.

21 Ibid., pp. 175-180.

22 Brahmasutrabhashyam of Sankaracharya, Adhyasabhasya – the Preamble ch 1.i.

23 Ibid., Nyayasutras of Gautama...

24 Ibid., Samkhyasutras of Isvarkrsna.

25 Philosophy of St.Thomas, by Gardeil Vol III, Psychology.

26 Ibid.,

27 “Sarvam Khalvidam Brahmam”– Brhdaranyaka Upanisad  viii. Mandala., Ramkrishna Mission Publ.

28 Ibid., pp.162-163

29 Vedantasara by Ramanujacharya, Motilal Banarsidas & Co. p.130.

30 Ibid., p.132

31 Ibid., p.143

32 Ibid., Brahmasutrabhasyam of Sankaracharya, Mantra 107...

33 Ibid., p.374