I have not yet seen the film, but from social media, I find that an important point has come to focus. That is about the importance of teaching Hinduism to our children.

This must be examined. It is not by external actions such as wearing a tilak on the forehead, or raising slogan Jai Sriram, or worshipping a cow or wearing a shikha etc., that we know about our religion. These can even be counterproductive.

Respect for religion and self-esteem are possible only when we know the basic character of our texts and the texts of other religions too.

We all have friends in other religions. We work with them, eat with them and we should continue to have good relations with them. But, in the present scenario, we should also have knowledge of religions so that we are neither provoked by fundamentalists nor lulled into comfort by ignorant seculars.

We may first see whether all religions are equal.

If the Hindus say that all religions are not equal, the left liberals will pounce on them for being supremacists. Hindus do not say this, the Abrahamic Religions (AR) do. The two main Abrahamic religions, Christianity, and Islam, hold their own religion to be the true religion that deserves to survive on earth and that all others must be eliminated. This is God’s mandate to the followers. The mighty Pope had, in the presence of the then PM of India, asked for harvesting millions of souls in India. The Indian government meekly tolerated it. The treatment of Islam towards minorities is too well known.

In India, some Hindu politicians glibly say that all religions are equal, not with any knowledge of the theology of the religions, but due to political expediency to create vote banks. Some paid writers/media persons say this to mislead people. In the case of political leaders, it is a politically expedient ploy and in the case of academics, it is a statement from a high moral ground. The Indian intellectuals (called the broiler-chicken-intellectuals by Prof. Vaidyanathan, as they cannot produce anything original) merely accept the Western narratives as truth. Even ordinary Hindus say that all religions are equal. It is because of the liberal, inclusive philosophy in their blood.

We may see the important differences between the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism as follows-

• The Abrahamic religions were started at one point of time in history by a particular person. Hinduism was not started by a single person. We have hundreds of philosophers (the sages of the Vedic period) spread out in various places, who contemplated and debated on the nature of God and gave their revelations. These revelations are the final message of the Vedas and are called the Upanishads. These are the primary texts of Hinduism. All existing traditions (such as the worship of Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Shakti etc.,) are shaped by the philosophy of the Upanishads.
• In the Abrahamic religions (AR), one person claimed to have had communication with God and he wanted to convey that to people. There is one text, and it tells all. That is why the invaders in India felt that all the libraries of Buddhists were unnecessary and hence burnt them. It is the framework of ‘I tell, you listen’. In Hinduism, there is no such claim. There are academic debates tempered by a detailed system of logic. There are thousands of books, not one.
• The AR say that God created the universe in the year 4004 BCE. It is a linear concept of time. The Hindu texts have a cyclical concept of time, as the creation is eternal and hence, we can describe it in terms of cycles of creation. If we say that God created the universe at a particular time, a question arises as to what he was doing till then. He cannot be called a ruler, as there was nothing to rule over (Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Gita 13-19). It also follows that after creation He does not seem to have any work because those who die go to purgatory and wait there till doomsday. It is only then the Abrahamic God comes into the picture again to decide the fate of the believers and non-believers. In contrast, the Hindu texts talk of cycles of creation and give a timeline going up to billions of years for the different cycles of creation.
• The goal of a human being in the AR is to believe in the God-given in the book and follow his orders.  The highest human goal is to attain heaven and stay there eternally, enjoying wine and women. Heaven is an extension of earthly casinos with eternal, unlimited debit cards. In Hinduism, the highest goal of the human being is to know the Supreme Reality by reasoning, to realize its infinite nature and realize that his/her essential nature is not different from God. He lifts himself from the basic human nature of hatred, divisions etc., and becomes one with God. He liberates himself from the norms of society, his caste norms, the religious norms, and all defining features. He goes beyond the limitations of social, cultural, or religious identities and practically he is neutral and compassionate like God himself. The texts call him ati-varnashrami, one who has transcended all the above defining features. Thus, he does not become the cause of any battle. He may become a victim of aggression, as we see all through in Indian history. The realized person loses his identity in the Supreme Reality. He becomes an outsider, a seer, who observes human behavior which he transcends and performs his duties in society with that vision.
• As noted, we do not find any analysis of the nature of Supreme Reality in the books of AR. There is a three-dimensional idea of a heaven that is located somewhere in space. In the Elizabethan worldview, the earth was suspended by gold chains from heaven and the hellish regions were located below the earth. While the omniscient, omnipotent god was spatially located, and was the ruler of heaven, there was another power center, hell, ruled by the rebel angel Satan, who was a permanent adversary of God. Thus, the power of God was always challenged by another person. God is said to be a person without form, but he is a male, and he is said to have created man in his image. God is a person favoring a tribe, interacts with them, and directing them.

Hinduism talks of God at two levels – first, at the level of the layperson who needs a functional god, and second, at the level of a student seeking truth. From the layperson’s point of view, there is a functional religion with a multiplicity of gods and multiple rituals. All these disappear at the level of the seeker of truth. There are no rituals for the students of Vedanta.

In 1893 when Swami Vivekananda spoke about Hinduism in the parliament of religions in Chicago, he spoke of the philosophical aspect of Hinduism and not about the Hindu gods like Vishnu or Shiva, or about the ritual aspect of Hinduism, because that is what counts when you present the thought process of culture.

In the Hindu text, the Brahma-sutras, of sage Badarayana/Vyasa, one can find an elaborate discussion about the nature of Supreme Reality on epistemological lines. There are arguments and counterarguments based on the revelation of various sages who envisioned the Upanishads. The nature of the individual, the nature of creation, and the nature of the Supreme Reality are discussed threadbare. For instance, the AR talk only of earth and the earthlings, and that too, God favors a particular tribe and would not hesitate to draw pestilence on other tribes. The Hindu texts talk of the immense universe and consider all the living and non-living things as a manifestation of that Reality, which is of the nature of consciousness. Epistemology and ontology characterize not only Hinduism but also Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.

• An important difference to be noted is that the theology of AR is antithetical to the idea of democracy, while the Indic religions (Eastern religions in general) have no conflict with democracy. Their theology does not clash with modern democratic institutions in any way. The theology of AR is clear that the whole world must be converted to their religion. This is being implemented by some Islamic countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh. The maulvis have made it clear several times that their text is supreme, and their loyalty is primarily to their holy book. The Christian countries, though their theology remains unchanged, are allowing non-Christians to live in peace in their countries. This is because, notwithstanding their theology, the societies got civilized over the period of the last two hundred years due to various reasons.
• History also shows that scientists were persecuted in the AR but in India, there is no such conflict. It was long ago known that the earth revolved around the sun, and this idea did not clash with religion. We can know about the Indian knowledge systems from several talks available on the YouTube, particularly talks by scientists like Dr. Ramasubrahmanian of IIT, Mumbai, Dr. Raj Vedam, Dr. Michel Danino, Prof. K.S. Kannan and others.
• There is mere theology but no epistemology or ontology in the Abrahamic religions. Their heaven, hell and the hierarchy of beings are absolute. In Hinduism, heaven is the lower level of truth, told to an ordinary person. Heaven is a mean achievement that a true seeker must avoid but go for philosophical inquiry.
• In the AR the thrust is on belief in God and on converting all others into their religion. As a result, there would inevitably be pressure on other societies. The pilgrims who colonized the newly discovered America had no qualms about decimating the native population and it was in the name of God. It was reported that about 64 million natives were killed by white Americans over a period. In Hinduism, there is no concept of converting people. Consequently, there is no pressure on the other religions. In the AR, there can be pressure, war, or any other violent means to bring the whole world into one belief. In other words, religious violence is commended.

In Hinduism, there are academic debates but converting persons from other religions does not exist. In our Puranas, the battle between gods and demons is a battle between good and evil, but not between the believer and non-believer. (Rama and Ravana were both believers in the Vedas). In AR, the non-believer is, by definition, a contemptible person, particularly in Islam, and hence fit to be converted at gunpoint. Women can be taken as sex slaves and as war spoils. Violent termination of indigenous people took place in recent years in western nations.

• The idea of blasphemy is a serious threat to free thought in society. In AR, the texts containing what is regarded as the word of God are inviolable. Any violation would be blasphemy, sometimes punishable with death. For instance, if Allah said that believers in other gods are to be condemned, it is eternally valid and must be implemented. In Indic religions, there is no idea of blasphemy and no punishment by humans. Any such act of disbelief or criticism against gods is taken as a sin and it is expected that such a person will appear before god. Moreover, ethical injunctions are flexible and can undergo change depending on place, time, person, or situation (Taittiriya Upanishad 1-11). There are certain unchanging injunctions such as non-violence, speaking the truth etc., but in other social relations, the orders are subject to change.
• The Abrahamic religions take pride in the idea of monotheism. But Hinduism visualizes God at two levels – one at the level of a lay believer who needs a god with a name and form and who can answer his prayers and secondly, at the level of a philosopher, who wishes to know reality. Such a person is told that what we call God is not a person but an impersonal entity, which is of the nature of infinitely existing consciousness. The nature of God is merely handed down by the messenger in the case of Abrahamic religions. He is the omniscient, omnipotent male sitting in a golden mansion in heaven.

In Hinduism, there is an elaborate treatise called Brahma-sutras, the aphorisms which analyze the nature of Brahman based on the experiences of the sages of Upanishads. They logically discuss various concepts and arrive at the idea of the Supreme Reality. Hinduism, at the common man’s level, accepts all forms of deities but asserts that the highest reality is far from what the Abrahamic religions think of. It is an impersonal entity infinite in nature. When God is infinite, it logically follows that all beings and the whole universe are mere names and forms in that reality and all these names and forms are impermanent.

Thus, Vedic polytheism is different from the Western allegation of polytheism. The Indian texts say that all forms like Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Ganesha etc., are different forms of one reality. Several Vedic statements assert this. Sarvani rupani…sa brahma, sa harih, sendrah ….tvam rudras-tvam Vishnu …The Gita (chapter 10) allows various illustrious forms as fit for meditation. In The Gita 11- 39, Arjuna says, ‘You are Vayu, the wind god, Yama, Agni, Varuna, the Moon, Prajapati and the creator Brahma. Salutations to you again and again’. The wrong notion that there are 330 million gods in Hinduism is due to ignorance about Vedanta. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad explains how all these are forms of one Absolute Reality (Sakalya brahmanam, of the Br- Up). This idea can be seen in innumerable places in Vedic literature.

The spirit of tolerance in Hinduism is seen throughout the Upanishads. It is repeatedly shown in the Gita. For instance, in verse 7-21, Krishna says, ‘whoever, with devotion, wants to worship whatever form of deity, I conform to the same devotion of the person in the same form’. It means that all forms belong to one Reality. Again, in 9-23 he says, ‘Even those who worship other deities with devotion, are indeed worshipping me only, though in an unprescribed way’. Krishna is speaking not as a person born in Yadu clan, but as the mouthpiece of the Supreme Reality, called Brahman, which is formless. Such statements show the liberal, inclusive philosophy, which is not found in other religions.

Human beings can think of God at three levels only. First, a god with a form and functions – such as Krishna, Rama or Shiva, Durga and so on. Second, we can think of a god without form, but one who has functions, one who intervenes, counsels, directs and interacts with humans – as in the case of AR. Such a god is seen in the nyaya, the yoga school of Indian philosophy. The third and final level is that God is not a person at all, not even someone who is commanding or guiding humans. What we call Supreme Reality is not even a person, but an impersonal entity; it is an infinitely existing consciousness. It has no form and no functions. We do not use the pronoun he or she, but we use It with a capital I. This consciousness has a manifesting power, and that is the universe. We visualize the cosmic scheme as God. The three levels can be summarized as follows

God with form and functions (saakaara and saguna)

God without form but with functions (niraakaara and saguna) Reality which is formless and functionless (nirakara and nirguna).

This third level is visualized in the Upanishads only and nowhere else. All other conceptions of God by all religions get subsumed in this formless and functionless Reality.

Thus, Hinduism talks of two levels of reality – empirical reality and absolute reality. Various deities, male and female are accepted at the empirical level whereas, at the absolute level, there can be only one Reality, which is called Brahman, for purpose of transaction.

The Abrahamic god is male whereas the Hindu gods (visualized at the empirical level and described in the mythological texts, puranas) can be male or female. Hindus have several female deities whose worship is as prevalent as that of the male gods. Sometimes the cosmic ruler takes the form of an animal too to vanquish demons in some special circumstances, as in the case of demon Hiranyakasipu. This demon had done great tapas, obtained boons that he cannot be killed by gods or humans or animals. Hence God had to take a form which was half man and half animal. The message is that even if the demon is a great crook, he will come to justice. Such stories, however, are part of mythology and hence to be taken figuratively and not literally. Philosophy alone must be taken literally.

In other words, the Abrahamic religions say that there is only one God, whereas Hinduism says that there is God only, (an impersonal entity, which we may call God), while the universe is an appearance in that God, or to be more precise, in that consciousness. This proposition is not pantheism or panentheism, but it is the result of an incise debate about the nature of the Supreme.

• In AR, the human being is the boss of the whole universe, and all the flora and fauna are for him to enjoy as he pleases. This is quite different in Hindu texts. The human being is on par with all other living beings, including trees. For instance, in the very opening mantra of the Yajur Veda the student who goes to pick a small branch of a palasa tree seeks its permission saying, ‘O palasa! I need to cut your branch for the purpose of yajna for the gods’. When a person takes a dip in a river, he apologizes to the river, as he is polluting it with his bodily dirt. When a person breaks the ground to build a house, he seeks permission from the earth. There is a tradition for Hindus to have a family tree, which they are expected to grow and never cut. They zealously raise and protect such trees. Thus, there is a great reverence for nature, not out of foolishness but out of a vision that it is a divine manifestation. All beings, including a mosquito or an ant, are covered by the injunction of non-violence.
• All goodness and kindness advocated by the AR are applicable to their own fellow believers. Christianity is giving a liberal interpretation to statements such as ‘love thy neighbor’ as applicable to all, but it was not the original intention. It meant ‘love another Christian’. The infamous Joshua project, launched by the church to harvest souls in India is a shame, if we see the story of Joshua in the Book of Joshua. In the battle of Jericho, Joshua exterminates all residents of Jericho – man, woman, and child – and burns the city, but carefully collects all gold, silver and other valuables. We do not know whether the church is envisaging such an operation in India. Islam does not make any such pretensions but clearly calls us kafirs. Ambedkar noted it clearly and unequivocally.

In contrast, there is universal, unconditional love for all beings in all the Hindu texts. It is the same in Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. A person is required to see divinity in all beings, including insects. Several stories in our epics (e.g., The story of Mandavya in Mahabharata) illustrate this.

• The AR bind people in servitude whereas Indic religions liberate. Our idea of God determines our ethics and social behavior. A jealous god would not allow others to live in peace. He would like to convert them all into his followers. Or is it really the God who is issuing such orders, or have we projected our intolerance and hatred onto God and put our hatred and greed in the mouth of the innocent and benevolent god? Thus, the AR not only divide people into two polarities but also bind them into servitude, making them soldiers of God to conquer other nations and force the belief system on them. Imagine the destructive potential of the cumulative hatred of millions of students fed on a rhetoric of hate in religious institutions if the god is jealous.

The Indic religions, on the other hand, have the goal of liberating a person from the religion he is practicing. Vedas are of little use to a liberated person as he has risen above the narrow boundaries of religious injunctions which delimit him, says the Gita. Vedas become non-Vedas in the context of a liberated person, says an Upanishad. We cannot find any religion which asks a person to go beyond the book and seek the truth.

“Follow any religious tradition, as the supreme reality is beyond all these traditions which talk of a personal god but rise above these rituals which confine you to a personal god and know the supreme reality. You are not different from that supreme reality. Religion is useful in the initial stage. It is like a boat which helps you to cross the river but after crossing, you do not carry it along with you. You leave the boat. Similarly, religion helps you to attain purity of mind to contemplate reality. Without purity and mental integrity, it would not be possible to contemplate the truth”. This is the sum and substance of Vedanta.

• The AR say, ‘you are a sinner. Accept our god and attain heaven’. Hindu texts answer at two levels. At the level of a lay person, they accept that God saves us from our sins, not by taking over our sins but by giving us good sense to do the right things. But at the higher level, the texts say, ‘you are divine in nature (That thou art). Contemplate on it and realize divinity in you’.

In this regard, what is said about Hinduism is broadly applicable to other Indic religions. Buddhism and Jainism were started by two individuals, but they did not claim to have had any communication with God. Their doctrine is not theology but philosophy, with elaborate arguments on epistemology and ontology. Just as the highest goal in the Hindu texts is to realize the truth and liberate oneself from the shackles of religion, the goal in Buddhism is to become as pure as Buddha, to gain Buddhahood.

In Jainism, the goal is to become another Mahavira. Sikhism originated in highly troubled times, and it was led by Hindu leaders who took up a different battle attire and lifestyle. Their holy book, the Granth-sahib, is full of hymns for the same Hindu gods. Their mula-mantra is a retake from the Upanishads. Hence, their goal too is to realize the Supreme Reality. However, Sikhism did not have the luxury of peaceful times. It originated in turbulent times and hence did not have as many polemical texts as the other three Indic religions.

• A question is posed about the Hindu goal of attaining moksha, or liberation. Of what earthly use is this? How is it useful to society? For this, we must see that the Hindu vision is the only one in which all traditions of worship are accepted. Modern ideas such as religious tolerance, liberalism, acceptance etc., are built in the psyche of every Hindu. He does not entertain hostility with any Western tradition too, but he is unfortunately pushed to the corner to defend himself.
• A corollary of the above vision is that the Indic traditions are individualist, urging a person to go beyond religion and discover oneself. In contrast, the AR are collectivist; their collective prayers are part of the military strategy. They are collectivist on the same lines as Marxism or Maoism in their strategies of protracted struggle and tactics for expansion. Emerson, the American philosopher, along with Thoreau, was an admirer of Hindu texts. For this reason, the church kept him away for a long time (American Veda). His essay ‘Self-Reliance’ is a watered-down version of self-inquiry told in the Upanishads. He knew that his society was not prepared to acknowledge ideas from other cultures. His essay was wrongly understood by American society and led to an amoral individualism, which is probably being exploited by the woke/liberal elements hostile to the USA to destroy any healthy social values.