From the metaphysical levels of the religion to the simplest, Hinduism is characterized by what seem to be opposing viewpoints. The concept of deity itself is one of total non-manifestation which is nirguna and yet manifestation in a variety of forms as saguna. So on the one hand we have a metaphysical concept of a totally transcendent Absolute and on the other the avatar as the epitome of anthropomorphic theism. Yet the Hindu sees no disparity here because all is ultimately one, Brahman. Then again, the cyclical conception of all existence, both in the microcosm of the world and the macrocosm of the cosmos, means that dual concepts of creation and dissolution become unified. For what is created must, ultimately, cease to exist in a world of flux and transience, but equally so, what ceases to exist is reborn again, from the universe to the tiniest flower. Life is death and death is life; all that is born must die and what dies will be reborn. Siva, as we saw in art One exemplifies this as the dissolving force in existence who at the same time is the colour of life and creation - white. And Visnu, the creating, preserving force of life is the dark colour of death: the one prefigures the other in a never-ending cycle.

     Sometimes quite opposing ideas have been accommodated side by side. The belief in karma and samsara is maintained alongside a belief in ancestors and the existence of heaven and hell. No paradox is seen here: the latter concepts of heaven and hell are simply places to which the dead will go, depending on their karma, in order to use up some of the positive or negative karma before rebirth. Two rather disparate concepts have thus been neatly brought together. For some, the former will be more important; for others - particularly in popular Hinduism - the latter. At the philosophical level, such differences become more acute with, for example, a school of thought such as Advaita Vedanta accepting a totally monistic view of reality while classical Samkhya advocated plurality as the nature of reality. Originally, there was little to link such opposing schools of thought for classical Samkhya denied the existence of a unifying principle of Brahman. But the moment Brahman is posited - and the Samkhya of the Gita does this - ultimate unity is again achieved.
     There is much disparity in belief and practice, and many instances when the unity believed to be characteristic of Hinduism is considerably imbalanced: Thus Hindus may describe their religion as varnasramadharma, but while varna remains important, the four stages of life are more rarely observed. There is a difference too in the religion of the scriptures - the Sanskritized element of the religion - and the religious practices of village life. It could be said that the latter, where female divinity is allowed greater expression, do much to balance out the more male-orientated Hinduism of the official texts: theory and practice thus unify well. The concept of a unifying essence of atman in Hinduism should serve, theoretically and practically, to overcome excessive differentiation between male and femfale status in Hinduism. Sadly this is an area where practice does not conform so well to the philosophical idea that male and female are co-existents in perfect balance and unity in the microcosm and macrocosm, in the divine and the human. A film such as the highly acclaimed Indian production of The Bandit Queen starkly shows how the imbalance between the sexes has manifested itself, while the status of the male is still of such import that girls are aborted. There are disparities, too, between such concepts as ahinsa ' non-violence ', and the practice of animal sacrifice, though here, there are many who recognize such imbalance and seek to accord to animals the kind of respect they deserve as manifestations also of one Ground of all Being.

     The areas of class and caste and ideas of pollution with which they are intimately bound have been shown. to overlay so much belief and practice in Hinduism. Theoretically, as was noted at the conclusion of Part One, each individual should be free to choose the path to the divine which suits his or her level of consciousness and particular stage of evolution. But caste and location mostly dictates this for an individual. The average Hindu is not so free that he or she would be comfortable to practise an individualized belief beyond the pale of the immediate caste. But then it is the sum total of all past karma which places an individual in the kind of life-situation into which he or she is born and which is the best svadharma personal dharma' for that individual. Thus caste in Hindu eyes would be seen, not to prevent evolution or individual freedom in religious belief and practice, but to place the individual in the best position for it to occur.