[The following two thought-provoking comments were made on our previous post by reader Painter Briefly, who wishes to remain anonymous, and by Jayram Daya. The editors felt that they should be shared with the wider reader group.]

1. Comment by Painter Briefly

One line from the post A Few Points On Religion caught my attention in a striking manner:

The established ‘religious institutions’ of Gujarat did not fulfill the simple requirements of basic humanity; a ‘foreign religion’ did.

Naturally one asks, ‘WHY?’

Let me put forth the string of thoughts as an answer to this question. Perhaps we can pin it down to one of the tenets of Hinduism: the idea of rebirth, reincarnation, पुनर्जन्म. 

A long time ago, I had read an article in Marathi on the topic of पुनर्जन्म. I am not sure, but I think it was attributed to Osho. The gist of the article was:

Long long ago there was a civilization, a precursor to Hindu. They faced a dilemma: Teachings of the Shastras suggested that as part of Divine Justice, good deeds fetch rewards, and bad deeds fetch punishment. The reality was palpably opposite. Bad men were flourishing and good men were suffering. Gyanis thought over it. If this continued, and it seemed clear that it would, it would be impossible to persuade people to do good things. Then they played a masterstroke.

They said: ‘Yes, we are witnessing an inversion of the Shastras. But it appears so only during this birth. Your good deeds in this birth will be rewarded in the next birth; and you will be punished in your next birth for all your bad deeds in this birth.’

As expected, this was bought by the public and the good men continued to be good. Happy ending!

---

What the article did not say was: There is a corollary, or call it a side effect.

That logic made it somewhat easy to ignore the call of the conscience to help the needy. The call was suppressed by the logic that the suffering person must have done something bad in his previous birth, and is being punished for the same in this birth. I should not act against ‘Divine Justice’ by mitigating his suffering.

It also kept the sufferers quiet: Convinced that the suffering is ‘God given’, a consequence of the sins committed by them during their previous birth, they were reluctant to fight against the injustice and preferred to endure the suffering so that they will be rewarded in the next birth.

Unless the society accepts the tenets that ‘Good is good in itself. There is no one sitting in judgement. There is no reward nor punishment: neither in this birth nor in the next birth‘, the society will land into this problem.

2. Comment by Jayram Daya

Your article draws a clear distinction between dharma as an essential principle that sustains life and order and religion as a historical, institutional, and social construct. The two should not be considered synonyms. Dharma is more than just a set of beliefs or a membership identity; it is about the nature of existence, right behavior, accountability, and the order that supports both the individual and society.

However, the Advaitic view holds that the ultimate truth cannot be limited to a single religion, prophet, text or institution. Different traditions might be viewed as culturally conditioned representations of humanity’s search for a single ultimate reality. The true test of any spiritual path should not be its size, power or claims of exclusivity, but rather whether it fosters compassion, humility, self-awareness, and genuine concern for the suffering of others.