| Back
to Content
|
Myth
of Hindu Sameness Source:
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305972 Published on Thursday, November 18, 2004 Abstract This
essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus alike
that Hinduism is the same as other religions. Some common factors
that cause many Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows: Hindus
arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism,
and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor.
Against this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make
a clear distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by
separating them as dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity),
devika and asuric, etc. Many
Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with the
diversity of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing
with the diversity and conflict found in the worldly. Furthermore, they
fail to distinguish between shruti and smriti. The unity of all shruti
is assumed to mean that all smritis must be the same. In particular,
Hindus fail to understand the critical history-dependence of the
Abrahamic religions and the way their core myths and institutions are
built around these frozen smritis. Often what Hindus really mean is that
all religions are equal in the respect and rights they deserve,
but they confuse this with sameness. At the
same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences lead to
tensions and violence. Many Hindus have internalized these arguments,
over simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one truth and all
paths leading to it. To
address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical
framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. It
classifies religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric.
The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history.
Non History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do
have beliefs about history, but their faith is not contingent on
history. The
essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer
the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts
that are inherent among History-Centric religions. In
analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through
this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its
interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of
Christianity and Islam. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-Centric,
and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of Sameness,
by offering itself as a library of shareware for "generic"
spirituality. The
essay cautions that Hinduism runs the risk of becoming either
(1) History-Centric itself, or (2) losing its identity and
becoming digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth. Scenario
#1 leads to a three-way jihad among three History-Centric
religions – Christianity vs. Islam vs. Hinduism – in which Hinduism cannot
win. Scenario #2 leads to the dissolution of Hinduism through a
combination of hostile and friendly takeovers by Christianity, which, in
turn, worsens the two-way jihad between Christianity and Islam.
Therefore, both scenarios ultimately feed the clash of Christianity vs.
Islam, i.e. between conflicting History-Centric positions. To
construct an alternative framework, the essay debunks the Sameness
Myth, which reflects naïve Hindus' wishful thinking about how other
religions ought to be rather than how they actually are. The
essay calls for Hindu scholars to develop a rigorous approach to
purva-paksha (scholarly critiques of other traditions within the
framework of the Indian darshanas); to highlight the Hindu history of
constructions through its own smriti traditions; and to refute false
presuppositions about Hinduism that have spread into many academic
disciplines. The
essay recommends the promotion of equality-with-difference
as a core Hindu principle, also referred to within this essay as difference-with-respect.
This entails asserting a positive Hindu identity that is neither History-Centric
nor dismissive of its distinctiveness. I:
Introduction There
are two current trends in Hinduism that were born of a perceived
'threat' to Hinduism. These are as follows: 1.
There is a movement to focus Hinduism in terms of God's
interventions in Indian history, most commonly associated with Avatar
Ram's history and the related geography. Such a version of Hinduism is History-Centric.
(See my earlier writings.) The term is also explained later in this
essay. 2.
The second trajectory is less formal and less institutionalized,
but is far more pervasive and subversive. This is to unbundle (or break
up) Hinduism into a set of separate generic ideas, practices, symbols,
etc., that any religion or non religious worldview may appropriate in a
modular fashion, assimilating what fits and rejecting (and demonizing)
what does not. I call this the Sameness Myth because it is
the result of the false premise that Hinduism is the same as any
other religion, thereby making its parts individually available for
appropriation. Both
these trends feed and are fed by a 'threatened Hinduism', i.e., the
sense that Hinduism is facing pressures from within and without.
However, this essay does not examine such threats or pressures. (I have
other essays on geopolitics and Hinduism.) History-Centrism
(#1) provides any religion with an identity fortress, which is both
defensive and useful for an offensive. It also tends to collapse
internal differences and encourage homogeneity. I shall argue
against the merits of this kind of essentializing of Hinduism, and will
suggest alternative ways of bringing cohesion and identity that preserve
difference. After a
brief overview of History-Centrism, the main purpose of this
essay will be to explain the problems that Hinduism is facing because of
#2, i.e., the false myth that it is the same as other religions.
I shall show that the Sameness Myth suffers from at least three
problems:
The
opposite of sameness is difference. Many scholars have considered
'difference' to be the source of tensions and violence. Hence, they
promote the sameness myth. However, this is a European view based on
their experience with Abrahamic religions that are History-Centric. This
view does not apply to non-European cultures such as the Indic
traditions that have a worldview of difference-with-respect. Difference-with-respect
is an attitude that is practically unachievable through History-Centric
religions, except in the form of artificial political correctness
commonly referred to as 'tolerance'. My
thesis of difference-with-respect is at odds with both #1 and #2 poles
above. Furthermore, each pole's frenzy feeds the other:
The
following factors have contributed to the Sameness Myth:
The
rest of this essay consists of the following three Sections: Section
II defines History-Centrism, and explains its centrality in
institutionalized Abrahamic religions and also explains why Hinduism has
not depended upon History-Centrism. Section III refutes
the Myth of Hindu Sameness, and explains the problems it causes.
Section IV proposes a Constructive Hinduism project as the way forward
in the 21st century, with the objective to build a positive Hinduism
while avoiding the two competing pitfalls of History-Centrism and
the Sameness Myth. (I am dissatisfied with the term 'Constructive
Hinduism' for a variety of reasons and this is a tentative term only.
See details[5]. It is my
claim that non History-Centric faiths offer the only
spiritual alternative available to the Darwinian clash among History-Centric
religions, i.e., the clash between one religion's jihad and
another religion's jihad. Therefore,
if the projects of the kind outlined in Section IV fail, one of the
following two scenarios shall prevail: (i) Either Hinduism shall be
forced to become History-Centric and this will result in a
three-way clash of History-Centric religions: Islam vs.
Christianity vs. Hinduism, which Hinduism cannot ultimately win. (ii) Or
Hinduism shall get digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth,
in which case the two-way clash between History-Centric
Christianity and History- Centric Islam shall worsen. II:
History-Centrism Anecdotal
background: The
critical difference between Indic and Abrahamic religions crystallized
in my mind a few years ago, when I was giving an informal talk on
Hinduism to a room full of attorneys in I
started by asking this intellectually sharp audience a set of questions
which went roughly as follows: What would happen to your religious
lives if, hypothetically, all history were voided or made inaccessible
to you or somehow falsified beyond hope? In other words, imagine that
due to some strange reasons, the details of which are irrelevant, you
have to live your lives without having any knowledge passed down from
God through any historical events whatsoever. What would you do? Would
it be possible for you to lead religious lives, and if so, by what
authority would you do so? In other words, can you discover the
spiritual truth for yourselves without dependence on historical sources,
or would you be lost if such historical sources were simply unavailable
or unreliable? To my
surprise, these very highly educated Jews and Christians were stumped.
Many felt that it would be impossible to be religious under such
circumstances because man lacks the ability to know God's will directly
without the historical prophets. Others felt that only Jesus' very
specific personal sacrifice (a historical event) had made it possible
for man to get redeemed, as man had no inherent capability to achieve
salvation on his own. Some found the very discussion troubling and
became disturbed by my thought experiment with a loss of history. I then
explained to my audience that as a Hindu, my spiritual advancement
through yoga was independent of the history of Patanjali who wrote the Yoga-Sutras
and of any knowledge about his life history. Furthermore, the
effectiveness of the Vedic mantras was independent of the personal
history of the Vedic rishis, and the Vedas were considered a-purusheya
(authorless); the practices of Tantra were not contingent upon
belief in the history of anyone; the effect of bhajans
(devotional songs) was not based on any belief in the history of the bhakti
saints or the histories of any deities. Finally, I explained that
deities were not historical persons but were ahistorical forces and
intelligences just like the gravitation force; also, that many Hindus
had personified these forces through the poetic language of their
praises, as they acknowledged their inter-dependency in Nature. Therefore,
if all the history of my religion were falsified, it would not make any
difference to the effectiveness of my spiritual practice. Every
human being comes endowed with what I call the rishi/yogi
potential. There have been innumerable realized saints over time and
across world cultures that rediscovered the highest knowledge. History
was only 'nice to have', but not a 'must have'. The
audience was rather shaken up but also highly impressed by such a
stance. Could I have uncovered a serious blind spot, or at least
subliminal assumption, among Biblical societies about the necessary role
of history in religion? My
audience's reactions reminded me of the withdrawal symptoms of addicts
who are deprived of their substance dependence. I wondered: Had my
thought experiment deprived them of their history dependence and
triggered a sort of withdrawal syndrome? Why was their religiosity so
contingent upon and hence dependent upon specific historical episodes?
Are institutionalized Abrahamic religions in bondage to history? Over
several days, my thesis of History-Centrism emerged. This
thesis got a further boost when I participated in a major world
conference on science and religion in But I
knew very well that the very same religions also have major conflicts in
the real world. It occurred to me that these scholars had suppressed in
their talks the History-Centric dimension of their religions, and
it was this dimension, which made each religion distinct and also caused
conflicts with others. My question became: Why do Abrahamic religions
evade discussing their History-Centrism in scientific
discussions, while this is at the very heart of their evangelical
campaigns to claim uniqueness? Overnight,
I revised my talk that was scheduled for the following day. I
highlighted that History-Centrism could not be slipped under the
rug because (i) it was in violation of the scientific method, and (ii)
it was the principle cause of world conflicts. For
taking this stance, I was attacked on the stage by a prominent Indian
Christian scholar, who was working for Templeton. The conference was
suddenly shaken out of the pretence that 'all religions are all the
same'. Privately, many Indian attendees congratulated me for opening
this door. I felt convinced that I was on to something big in the field
of comparative religions. My talk is published in the conference
proceedings. Defining
History-Centrism: Most
religions and (even non-religious philosophical systems) agree on some
sort of upper limit of knowledge of humans in their ordinary state
of mind. However, they disagree on man's potential to transcend this
limit. Hindus
and Buddhists regard maya as being responsible for this limit to
infinite knowledge, but believe that adept yogis and others can
achieve states of self-realization or enlightenment in which ultimate
truth is directly experienced. Abrahamic
religions believe that there is an infinite gap of knowledge between God
and man, a sort of maya equivalent. But the vast majority of
denominations believe that man can have access to the ultimate truth only
when God sends a prophet with a message, and that man can never replace
the role of the historical prophets. Without history, therefore, man is
inherently lost in darkness. The
Indic approach leads to the experimentation and cultivation of human
initiated self-realization processes, of which yoga/meditation are
prominent examples. The Abrahamic approach leads to intensive studies of
historical prophets' messages, because this knowledge can never be known
by any other means. The
spiritual traditions based on self-realization hold that humans are born
with infinite potential and their essence is divinity (sat-chit-ananda).
Hence, if all historical records and knowledge were to vanish or become
corrupted or inaccessible to humans for whatever reason, new
self-realized living masters would be able to teach us the highest
truths based on their own fresh enlightenment. Even though these masters
are very rare, they have existed throughout history in many cultures.
The result is that (i) knowledge of history is not necessary to be a
religious person, and (ii) no culture has a monopoly on religious truth,
although different cultures may have used or misused this knowledge in
different ways. The
Abrahamic religions (according to the interpretations of most
institutions) deny the existence of any such infinite human potential
that, in effect, could make every human a potential prophet. They say,
only God sends a few prophets with the message containing such critical
spiritual knowledge. To abandon the history through which this prophetic
knowledge has been passed down, or to lose the exact account of these
historically transmitted canons would be catastrophic. The
latter approach to religion is defined as History-Centrism. Every
major religion has both strains -- History-Centrism from God
initiated prophets, and also ahistorical human initiated
self-realization. But in a given religion, one or the other tends to
dominate and this characterizes religion and its society in profound
ways. For the
Abrahamic religions, the history of religion is crucial; for Hinduism,
the making of religious history via self-realization, etc., is what is
important. This point is elaborated later[6]. What
History-Centrism does not mean: Historicity
is not the same thing as History-Centrism, and this point
deserves to be elaborated. Gautam
Buddha emphasized that his enlightenment was merely a discovery about a
reality that had always been there. He was not bringing any new
covenants from any God. The history of the Buddha is not necessary for
Buddhist principles to work. In fact, Buddha stated that he was neither
the first nor the last person to have achieved the state of
enlightenment. He also asserted that he was not God nor sent by any God
as a prophet, and whatever he discovered was available to every human to
discover for himself. This makes Buddhism not History-Centric. A
prominent theoretical physicist made the counter argument to me that the
Big Bang was a unique event that physicists believe in, thereby making
physics also History-Centric. However, this argument is flawed:
Physicists believe in the Big Bang Theory not as a premise of
physics (in the same sense as Christians believe in Jesus' historicity
as the premise of Salvation). Rather, the Big Gang Theory is a conclusion
that is scientifically derived based on physical laws and empirical
evidence that is verifiable today. Hence, the Big Bang Theory does not
make physics History-Centric: it is a result of physical theory
and not a pre-requisite belief or cause of it. Those who regard
it as evidence of History-Centrism are mixing causes and effects. The
following significantly characterize History-Centric religions: 1.
God himself intervenes in History, and it
is not merely the mundane history of humans such as 2.
God's historical intervention in human affairs is unique -- i.e.
non-reproducible -- and hence there cannot ever be a substitute to
knowing the history. (On the other hand, if 3.
God's historical intervention resulted in new Laws and
Covenants, and the events were not merely a discovery of pre-existing
reality. 4.
The past must be falsified, eradicated, subjugated or reconstructed
to fit the new truth created by such historical events. Hence, the
socio-cultural change brought about by the unique historical event is discontinuous.
It does not simply add new knowledge to old, but must erase the old
for it to be legitimate. It is God vs. God, as he alters and contradicts
his own past laws and messages. 5.
Because this history is about God, it is not falsifiable. History-Centric
religions tend to have draconian laws on blasphemy. Is Christianity History-Centric? [7] The core
Historical Grand Narrative of Christianity that is the minimum
necessary belief required by the vast majority of denominations
consists of the following:
Different
Christian denominations also believe in other supplemental History-Centric
and/or Predetermined-Future-Centric narratives in addition to the
core beliefs listed above. These constitute beliefs that are
non-negotiable in order for someone to be a member of the given
denomination. Examples of prominent beliefs of this kind are as follows:
On the
other hand, non History-Centric Christianity has been taught by
many Christian mystics using Indic adhyatmika techniques. But
these mystics were typically persecuted by the mainstream Christian
institutions, because they were seen as a threat to authority. Generic
ideals of loving others, doing seva or service to others, living
moral lives, and being socially responsible are non History-Centric
elements contained in Jesus' teachings. But contrary to many educated
Indians' naivety, such ideals do not define Christianity, because
such generic spirituality is also found in every world religion, and
there would be no reason to convert people away from their native faiths
into Christianity simply for these reasons. The differences between
religions are to be appreciated by examining their theological premises
and not by superficially looking at the ethical mandates. Liberal
Christians belong to certain denominations such as Unitarianism.
Unfortunately, these denominations add up to much less than 10% of the Evangelical
Christians have reacted to my thesis by confirming that their
faith is founded on literal historical events, which I have termed History-Centrism,
even though there is a mixed reaction to my use of this term. At the
other end of the spectrum, liberal Christian academicians claim that
this is not the 'real' Christianity: they find the hard facts about the
growing institutional Christianity to be an embarrassment to their
elitism. Is
Islam History-Centric? [8] The
minimum necessary condition to be called a Muslim is the History-Centric
belief without question or doubt that the Koran is the exact and
literal word of Allah who is the only God. This belief is not simply
desirable, but is absolutely necessary in order to be a Muslim. Furthermore,
another required core belief is the status of the Kaaba, which is
located in If,
hypothetically, the Kaaba was not History-Centric and hence
unique, Muslims could build Kaabas in every mosque in the world and pray
pointing locally towards those, and not towards Furthermore,
if replicas of the Kaaba could be installed in Muslims' homes, they
would be able to pray at home just as Hindus pray to a deity. This would
decentralize the Muslim sacred geography, thereby decoupling Indian
Muslims from Arabs, for example. It is the non-reproducibility of the
Kaaba that differentiates it from being an idol, and hence the political
emphasis to consider idolatry as blasphemous and punishable by death. Sufi
teachings, on the other hand, are very compatible with Indic traditions
and also with the mystics of the Abrahamic faiths. But Sufis have been
cruelly persecuted by Islam throughout their history. Furthermore,
Islam's ideals and practices of egalitarianism and social justice are
non History-Centric and are generic, but are not considered
sufficient to be classified as a Muslim. History-Centric
Clash
of Islam vs. Christianity: To
properly understand current geopolitics, the framework of History-Centrism
is very helpful. Muslim
and Christian leaders both claim many similarities between their
respective faiths: They worship one God, who is male, and both sides
accept that he is the same God. They accept the long lineage of
prophets of the Then why
is there so much conflict? I propose that intellectuals have simply
failed to understand the deeply rooted History-Centric conflicts.
Here are two examples of irreconcilable accounts of history, one
issue from either side:
There
are many other inherent conflicts besides these, but the above two
suffice to make my case. Any History-Centric system must
falsify all others in order for it to be valid. Both Islam and
Christianity, in their History-Centric forms – which have been
the dominant forms of both through most of their respective histories
– are inherently conflict-ridden. Therefore,
almost all the interfaith dialogs are mainly about public relations and
diplomacy. Each of these religions uses the term 'tolerance' to describe
its policy towards other religions. Rather than accepting this term as a
sign of their greatness, one must probe the underlying problems. To
tolerate means that the other is illegitimate but we shall put up with
him. Would you go to someone's house to dinner if his invitation says,
“I shall tolerate you to sit next to me?” We must demand respect,
not tolerance. But Muslim and Christian leaders often have great
difficulty about openly and formally giving respect to other
religions, especially non Abrahamic religions, since this would
legitimize these other religions. And, the History-Centrism of
Christianity and Islam forbids them from legitimizing any other
religions. Respecting other religions would de-legitimize the
proselytizing campaigns that are the life-blood of many institutions. History-Centrism
is the best framework I am aware of to understand the origin of
religious bondage and the sustenance of religious conflicts. Is
Hinduism History-Centric? There
are many non History-Centric Hindu paths, such as the following:
On
the other hand, the following aspects of Hinduism introduce History-Centrism.
But overall, the historicity in them is positioned as being optional,
and not absolutely necessary for the path to succeed:
The
relative absence of History-Centrism or its weak status has
enabled a vast array of conceptions of the Supreme Reality to emerge,
including the following:
History-Centrism
vs. Living Spiritual Masters: History-Centrism
also corresponds to Geography-Centrism, which means the
uniqueness of the geography where the history allegedly occurred. Furthermore,
the geography privileges the specific culture of the place where these
events occurred, and the inhabitants of these cultures tend to build
institutions to control the history, geography and cultural norms as
assets to preserve and to project their power. The politics of such a
religion comes under the control of the institutions that emerge and
win. Living
spiritual masters act as a counter balancing force to defuse
institutional power. Therefore, History-Centric religions have
considered living saints to be a threat. Such saints have the
credibility to overrule institutional authority in matters of
interpretation and practice, to de-legitimize the institution itself,
and to take away its followers. A
religion with a continual supply of living enlightened masters has: (i)
regular challenges to any established institutions of power and
doctrine, (ii) fresh shruti (first principles) for the current time,
place and context, and (iii) geographical (hence cultural)
decentralization of the spiritual movements because spiritual masters
emerge in unpredictable places and situations. Therefore,
History-Centric institutions only allow dead saints. For
example, in the Catholic Church, to be canonized as a saint the person
must have been dead for a certain number of years, thereby eliminating
any threat from that person. The dead person becomes the property of the
church, which controls the history and interpretations of the canonized
saint's teachings, free from any of the risks associated with living
saints. As a
result of the prominence given to living spiritual masters, non
History-Centric religions evolve towards lineages of adhyatmika (inner
science) practices. One may think of this kind of spirituality as embodied
knowing as contrasted with discursive knowledge, which is a set
of intellectual propositions, of which History-Centrism is one
kind. Canons tend to be less powerful in traditions built on embodied
knowing because of the emphasis given to living masters and their direct
transmissions. Centurion
Archetype vs. Yogi Archetype: [9] The two
pivotal events that profoundly shaped the trajectories for Eastern and
Western civilizations were the spiritual encounters of emperors Ashoka
and Constantine, respectively. Indian Emperor Ashoka surrendered his
entire military (centurion archetype) and became a Buddhist (yogi
archetype). But the opposite took place in the case of Roman Emperor
Constantine (centurion archetype) who captured and seized control over
Jesus (yogi archetype) for his imperialist expansion. In the
former case, the yogi archetype prevailed over the centurion
archetype, whereas in the latter case the centurion archetype prevailed
over the yogi archetype. These two events characterize the
dominant strains in Indic and Abrahamic religions, respectively. While
both archetypes have existed worldwide, different ones have dominated in
different traditions. The
centurion archetype is violence prone and extroverted. It is constantly
uneasy with itself and, hence, with its environment. The peaceful
introverted archetype of the yogi is embodied (adhyatmika) and at
ease with itself and others. The
centurion archetype thrives on History-Centrism, heroism and
control. Its priorities are worldly expansion and accumulation. The yogi
archetype seeks to ultimately transcend nama-rupa (constructs
based on limitations). Its priorities are adhyatmika, purifying
its gunas from tamas to rajas to sattva,
advancing from lower to higher chakras, and evolving from the
psychic body to the supra-mental body. The
centurion's belief system is founded entirely on God's historical
interventions, proven by the prophets' miracles as reported in anecdotal
accounts. The centurion controls this 'one true account of history' as
his asset and source of personal identity. This account legitimizes his
power, whether as the Catholic Pope or as an Frozen
canon and History-Centrism turn religion into a Darwinian game in
which many strategies get deployed to expand, takeover, monopolize and
plunder – all in God's name. On the
other hand, the creativity of new living spiritual masters is like an R
& D lab using an open architecture that encourages fresh startups,
and this threatens the orthodoxy in each era. History-Centric
religions advance very rarely, as it takes God's intervention using
miracles as the proof of authenticity, and these advances are violent
and kill the past identity, culture and history. On the other hand, open
and free adhyatmika explorations are cumulative and do not impose
on prior or competing worldviews. Such traditions are not boxed in the
way that History-Centric religions invariably are. The History-Centric
approach demands conformity because it is membership oriented: You
are either in or out, either one of 'us' or 'them', and this
subliminally equates to 'we = good' versus 'others = evil'. Monotheism
is more accurately described as My-Theism. Finally,
postmodernists must undertake a serious study of Indic thought free from
contemporary politics of the left and right, and from Eurocentric mis-portrayals
of the past. They need to appreciate the Indic traditions' resources for
deconstruction; that it seeks a positive state that is free from
conflict rather than the nihilism and cynicism that often results from
postmodern deconstructions. III:
Myth of Hindu Sameness To
evaluate the popular notion that Hinduism is the same as
Christianity, let us consider some specific issues. Shruti
and Smriti: One of
the foundations of Indian thought is the separation between shruti and
smriti as two different kinds of knowledge. Shruti
is
authorless. It is heard as direct inner experience without any
intermediary, not unfiltered through one's own conditioned mind. It is
available only in high states of consciousness achieved by rishis and
advanced yogis. Smriti
is constructed by persons in a historical, cultural context, and
is conditioned by its authors. Hence, it must change with time and
context. Shruti
is eternal truth, while smriti is meant to be changed and is to
be applied like case law with great care taken for each context to
determine its applicability and the required adaptation. Shruti
is the rishi's/yogi's present moment embodied experience of the
ultimate reality. Smriti is disembodied knowledge that is
objectified and discursive. Shruti is kept alive by living
enlightened spiritual masters. The
Bible and Koran combine shruti and smriti into one. Furthermore, smriti prevails over shruti
in these canons: Shruti was collapsed into smriti. All
Shruti has been reduced to Smriti - unchangeable text
rather than present realization. History became the supreme smriti of
the institution as that enabled it to collect taxes, impose its police
authority and to expand via imperialism. Shruti was sacrificed in
the process. Therefore, the finality of canon forces a freezing and
imposition of old smritis that were meant only for a given
historical context. The key factor is that they regard History-Centric
events as though they were shruti. This drags into the already
frozen canons, many incidental historical details about the way Prophet
Mohammed or Jesus or their respective followers lived. Hinduism's
and Buddhism's itihas (history) are viewed as smriti, and
not as shruti. This separation allows changes in smriti as
per human society's needs. But unfortunately, most of the condemnations
of Hinduism cite smriti as though it were shruti. These
critics mimic the colonial agenda to demonize native traditions and
native identity. They use educational institutions and media to
manufacture and/or distribute false interpretations. Hindu submission
and acceptance leads to Hindus internalizing these falsities, and they
often becoming pathological self-haters. One may
classify cultures as shruti centric or smriti centric. The
yogi is shruti centric and seeks to ultimately transcend Nama-Rupa.
Shruti refreshed by living spiritual masters prevents the
fossilization of old smriti. But institutionalized religions
drift away from yoga. Jihad (Islamic, Christian or Hindu), is a
product of smriti that has taken over shruti. Postmodernists
rightfully deconstruct smriti, but they suffer in two ways: (1)
They lack the yoga to be able to receive shruti and are stuck in
disembodied intellectualism. (2) They de facto tend to use Western smriti,
because their education, mentoring and career advancement are embedded
in Western smriti. Karma: The
Biblical historical narrative is the essence of mainstream
Christian denominations. When examined through the Indic lens, the core
historical narrative of the Bible is incompatible with karma
theory:
These
points do not necessarily falsify Christianity but point out the deep
incompatibilities between the two systems. This is merely an example of
the kind of engagement that would have to take place before any sameness
could be stipulated. During the centuries of darshana debates in The
tragedy is that by the time Christianity was taken seriously in Meanwhile,
we are left with nonsensical sameness talks by leaders who have failed
to do an adequate purva-paksha of Christianity. Time: Biblical
time is finite, with a specific beginning and an end. It is said to have
begun a few thousand years ago only, and the End of Time is coming soon
according to many mainstream denominations. [11]
This finiteness of time boxes many Christians into haste, and eventually
into terror that time is running out. The
peculiar combination of (i) Eternal Damnation (i.e. an infinite
problem) and (ii) Finite Time has produced a state of desperation
in Christian societies. Every
person is born into the infinite horror of Eternal Damnation, and the
finiteness of time does not give enough opportunity to resolve this
condition. Therefore, one must always be in a hurry and not waste time.
The consequence of not getting saved is Eternity in Hell, and one simply
cannot take any chances. This is why horrific images of Hell play a
critical role in pressuring people to convert. Reincarnation
doctrine was banned in Christianity so as to raise this pressure, and
this is especially effective as one becomes older. This is the one and
only life that a person will ever have and Time is running out! The
reward offered to those who become members of this History-Centric
belief is also infinite: Eternity in Heaven amidst God, along
with one's family, friends and other 'good' people. The price of failure
is unimaginable, the reward is too good to miss out, and the effort is
trivial as one merely has to admit that the Historical Grand Narrative
is true – and one is in! This
turns dangerous when it becomes extroverted and fuels the centurion-like
militaristic evangelism. Western
linear progression in history: After
the Enlightenment in The
self: The
Biblical notion of the soul gives it an individual essence, which
easily gets conflated with one's Earthly identity in terms of gender,
race, religion, and even Americans as having the unique Manifest
Destiny. Hence, there are good souls and bad souls, with different
places in the chain of being. On the
other hand, rebirth of the jiva-atman gives it experiences in
living as different genders, races, cultures, levels of prosperity and
so forth. This relativizes any Earthly identity formation as being only
relevant for this one birth and not as one's atman's essence. [12] Christ
will return to restore all saved dead persons back to life, in their original
bodies as of the time of their deaths. This helps the plastic
surgery industry and also drives the fixing up of dead bodies prior to
their burial: One must look forward to eternal life in this same
body, and the specifics of the body's race, gender, height, weight, age,
etc., are therefore critical priorities. This
sense of having one's physical body in heaven also encourages the youth
industry and causes people to be in denial of aging. This is becoming a
major factor in causing geriatric mental health problems, especially
after the individual is forced to admit that aging has set and that s/he
cannot fake youthfulness any longer. Death
and aging: The ashrama
system in Indian culture gives each life stage its own legitimacy and
dignity, and its own dharma to follow. One is not measured by the
norms of youth throughout one's life. The aged are respected, and regard
their condition as being normal. Being old is not seen as an abnormality
that one must cure or fight or be in denial of. This respectful
aging has enabled older people in traditional Indian societies to
remain integrated in multigenerational families, until recent mimicry of
Western lifestyles led to dislocated aging – ironically, the result of
'progress'. The
Bible's trauma of dealing with death and aging causes senility. The
obsessive youth culture is the result of this fear of aging. It has been
said that the West has a two-ashrama system: juvenile and senile.
People invest heavily to remain young for as long as they can, forcing
themselves into artificial extremes just to live up to the image. This
is juvenile behavior, and it is out of the dread of eventually turning
old and senile, and having a fearful death. Property,
privilege and entitlement: In the
Bible, God gives man ownership of all animals and nature, for man's own
pleasure. To
support the plunder of other peoples, this supremacy was extended by
Church theologians to argue in favor of the slavery of blacks and the
genocide of millions of Native Americans, on the basis that they were
heathens, i.e., not Christians. It was argued that the men who were
given ownership of the bounty of nature were Biblical men and not the
heathens. Later,
when these non-whites were converted into Christianity, this argument
was replaced by a different approach to supremacy, namely, that the
people of color were 'unfit to self-govern'. Therefore, it was declared
the duty of Anglo-Saxon Christians to rule over others in the best
interest of the others. Many criteria for 'fitness to self-govern' were
established, including 'moral values', 'rationality', and so forth. Data
was gathered to prove that non-whites lacked these qualities. By the
early 1800s America, this had evolved into the well-known doctrine
called Manifest Destiny, which was the basis for the conquest of new
territory (such as Texas) from Mexico, along with the territorial
expansion Westwards by conquering the Native Americans. This doctrine
explicitly gave white Americans the right to 'civilize' others by
whatever means they considered appropriate, and to take over their
lands, property and cultures. In Scholars
in Whiteness Studies have developed a notion called 'white privilege',
which refers to institutionalized and deeply rooted cultural privileges
that whites enjoy, even when a given white individual is free from
racial prejudices. Nowadays, the term has been replaced with 'American
privileges', and refers to the superior rights and entitlements that
Americans must enjoy in the world over and above other peoples. The Bush
Doctrine of spreading freedom and human rights has been called today's
version of Manifest Destiny. It presupposes that Any
perceived threat to the status quo of privileges and entitlements that
Westerners take for granted is sufficient provocation to trigger the
revival of Christian fundamentalism. Post-9/11 is seeing the rise of
this fundamentalism from its latent state. One of
the entitlements claimed by the West is in the field of knowledge
production and dissemination, and this may be called epistemic
privilege. This includes the right to select the topics for inquiry, the
way issues are framed, who is qualified and certified as a scholar, the
theories that are available to be applied, and so forth. Individuals
like me, who criticize the system, are deemed to be 'attacking' the
scholars and the scholars are depicted as 'victims'. This diverts
attention away from the real issues of substance that are being
contested. Naturally, many Indians have joined such a system of
privilege and protection, and have thereby earned the title, 'sepoys'. Institutional
authority: The
Church's institutional authority over all men lasted for centuries, and
similar theocracies existed in the case of Islam. (In fact, the serious
study Islam entails in large part a study of Islamic Law.) This does not
have a parallel in Hinduism, where the raja was supposed to protect the
diverse dharmas of every person and not impose his own personal dharma
upon others. The
Christian and Islamic concept of enforcement of religious laws on
people is different from the principle of voluntary dharmic
compliance. The Gita is not a book of rules that any authority is
supposed to enforce, nor was it ever the 'law'. It does not even say,
“Thou shalt do this and not that...” It explains how the
system of karma operates and what the consequences of various
choices are on the individual choice maker. The individual remains with
the freedom of choice and the knowledge of possible karmic
consequences governed by the cosmos and not by human
authorities/institutions. It is a description of natural rta/dharma,
and not man-made laws. [13] This is
why Indian gays/lesbians do not need to have a parade in Even the
much maligned Manusmriti was never enforced as the law of the land,
except under the British rule when it was enforced to prove that the
colonizers were ruling in accordance with 'Hindu Law', a canon they
constructed with the help of local pundits hired for the purpose. A
primary difference between Indian and Western approaches to
institutional authority is that the living gurus are given a high
status by Hindus, whereas institutions occupy the preeminent status in
Abrahamic religions. (This is why Hindu gurus have now become a
prime target of demonology, because Christian strategists realize that
no destruction of physical temples or texts or institutions will erase
Hinduism as long as its new gurus continue to appear and enjoy
large popular followings.) The
institutionalization in Biblical societies has also brought about a
culture of conformity with other members. Canonized knowledge leads to
normative thinking and social standard for everyone to emulate. Conformity
is also the seed of social competition. Such a society is more
vulnerable to advertisement driven consumerism. Can
sameness be one-sided? If X is
the same as Y, then Y must also be the same as X. [14]
This gives us a reliable method to empirically test the sameness
hypothesis in the real world. How many
Christian denominations would be willing to hold Vishnu worship
ceremonies in their church? Besides a few relatively small denominations
such as the Unitarians (who in combination have less than 10% share of
the US Christian population), almost all mainstream denominations reject
such proposals outright. Try launching a sameness program with leaders
of Mormons, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Pentecostals, etc. To
be genuinely the same, Hinduism would have to be given equal and
explicit treatment inside their congregation, and not in special
meetings for PR purposes. Would
the Only
after one tests the hypothesis in the real world (which is different
than the academic cocoons and staged 'interfaith dialogs') could one
begin to understand the sameness hoax that Hindus have been sold. The
role of Hindu leaders: After In this
milieu, Hindu gurus had few prospects within Hindu
leaders also betrayed their own darshana traditions in which they
are required to do purva-paksha of other worldviews. This means a
genuine, authentic and deep understanding of the prevalent worldviews
must be developed in such a profound manner that a scholar from that
other tradition would acknowledge it as being a true representation of
their position. [15] While in
the past, the purva-paksha opponents were typically Buddhists,
Vedantins, Jaina, Mimamsikas, and various others in False
information is more dangerous than acknowledgment of one's ignorance.
Most Hindu leaders naively equate Christianity with Catholicism, US
Christianity with European Christianity, and see all Christian
denominations as being the 'same'. They lack any purva-paksha
about Christian Liberation Theology, Inculturation strategies, constructive
theologies, Christian Zionism, and so forth. When they gleefully
quote that church attendance is down in the US, they fail to consider
that home based Christian prayer groups have replaced church going in
many communities across America, and such groups now represent a major
component of fundamentalist Christianity. Furthermore,
they simply lump all 'secularists' and 'leftists' as the 'same', because
they are untrained in Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment theories. Yet
individuals (including Indians) who are grounded in these Western
theories drive global culture, human rights, law, business codes,
property rights, literature and media. This means that Hindu leaders are
simply obsolete. At the
same time, one comes across many Hindu scholars who are chasing useless
and chauvinistic bandwagons that are disconnected from today's relevant
issues. For instance, they seem to be obsessed with 'proving' the age of
the Mahabharata or geographically locating the Vedas, as if any Hindus
were converting because the Mahabharata is not proven to be old enough!
They are like ostriches with their heads stuck inside the temple, ashrama
and/or political arena, while the globalized world has already
passed them by. [16] Being so
isolated and inbred, these Hindu leaders failed to develop any effective
'home team' to represent Hinduism in the important global debates today.
They have alienated themselves from large communities of intellectual
Indian youth and have lost the enormous cultural capital that once
existed amongst the white Americans practicing yoga/meditation, who
number 20 million. Dangers
of the Sameness Myth: The Myth
of Hindu Sameness is leading to the dissolution of Hinduism.
Patanjali's Yoga-Sutras are being clicked-and dragged into
becoming footnotes to the Gospel of John or some other system of Western
thought. The
Hindu Goddess became the subject of very serious and intense study by
many white women in the 1970s when they revolted against the male
centric Abrahamic religions. Today, the Hindu Goddess is often used to
enhance the historical narrative of Mother Mary or to reinterpret
European Goddesses such as Sophia, Diana, etc. Furthermore, Gloria
Steinem, one of the pioneers of the women's liberation movement in the Yet,
Western scholars and their Indian chelas have started to demonize the
Hindu Goddess as vulgar, as a symbol of sexual oppression of Hindu
women, and as a cause of violence by upper castes. There is
a long list of Hindu items being appropriated as Western ornaments to be
preserved, modified, celebrated and used by the new owners. The source
traditions are seldom acknowledged, and, instead, are burdened with
negative images and liabilities to encourage their demise. This
kind of sameness perpetuates the colonial inferiority complexes, while
feeding the cultural and political capital of the dominant culture. The
burden to be same is upon the underdog culture in terms of power, i.e.,
it is Hindus who must prove their sameness to the dominant culture, and
not vice versa, because it is the neo-Hindus who uphold sameness and not
the other religions. The sameness is therefore on the terms of the
dominant West. The West determines how authentic one's mimicry is and
which Indians get legitimized to various extents through awards,
certificates and brand value given to them. We are only as legitimate as
we are similar to them, and they control the judgment on how well we are
accomplishing this goal. Ironically,
one of the most common reasons given by Hindu youths to their parents
when they convert to another religion is, “You taught us that all
religions are the same, so how does it matter?” It would be okay if
the parents and Hindu leaders would simply accept this fine logic and
not be concerned. But they are concerned and do get angry. Yet, it has
not occurred to the leaders that their own sameness myths have caused
the very problems, which they are fighting. Many
Christian institutions and scholars do not practice sameness
internally, but deploy it externally with non-Christians as a rhetorical
ethics, i.e., as an ethics that is not meant to be implemented but is a
public relations projection. Hindus are encouraged towards sameness with
the strategic goal to (i) confuse them about identity, (ii) dilute their
interest in seriously studying their own traditions, and (ii) bring
Christian ideas into their lives in a Hindu-friendly manner, and
gradually move them deeper into Christian fundamentalism. IV:
Constructive Hinduism The
foregoing discussion leads to the following question: Can there be a
positive Hindu identity and universals that are neither History-Centric
nor a library of shareware for 'generic' spirituality? This section
suggests projects that might help accomplish this. It is merely a
preliminary list at this stage. Develop
History-Centrism vs. Ahistoricity as a theoretical framework: History-Centrism
is the cause of religious violence. Religious difference is not the
cause of violence if it is difference-with-respect. This is a key entry
point for discussing what Hinduism has to offer to the world today. Religious
freedom has become a major geopolitical initiative of the A
sustained dialog must begin between Indic deconstruction theories and
Postmodernism, in order to better understand areas of overlap and
differences. Develop
antidotes to the Sameness Myth: Expose
the blunder of thinking that the equality of religions' rights
implies their sameness. (Analog: Men and women have equal rights,
but men and women are not the same.) Show Hinduism's principle of equality-with-difference:
Develop purva-paksha
of other worldviews using various Indian siddhantas. European,
Western, White, etc., identities were constructed via study and
construction of others, and the Constructive Hinduism Project must
engage in similar theorizing of others while being true to the Indian darshana
tradition of honest debate. The
constant critique of others, including their History-Centrism,
immunizes Hinduism from sameness. Point out how the mimicry of Whiteness
creates the pressure for sameness among Indians. Whiteness Studies help
decenter Whiteness and show Western thought to be relative and not
universal. This makes elitist (Whitened) Indians self conscious of their
inauthenticity, reducing their rate of multiplication into the next
generation of students. Sanskrit
non-translatables must be explained in considerable detail, and the
common translations should be problematized. These are the most robust
and sustainable long-term anchors to preserve the authenticity and
distinctiveness of Indic traditions. Refute
radical difference: The
opposite of sameness is radical difference, which means that Hinduism is
so different that it cannot possibly make any sense to the West. A
consequence of radical difference (sometimes referred to as radical
relativism, as in the case of Richard Rorty), is that the study of
Hinduism can only be positioned as a study of the South Asian exotic
folks – in the same category as their monsoon and snakes. Both
sameness and radical difference are the result of on-going U-Turns.
These distill Hinduism into two kinds of components: Things
that are deemed valuable for appropriation into the dominant culture are
processed into generic sameness as an intermediate stage, pending being
re-contextualized as 'Western'. These are eventually removed out of
Hinduism, and the traces of appropriation are erased. The
residue consists of things that are considered 'undesirable' by the
dominant culture's values at a given time, although these determinations
are subject to future revision. These aspects are demonized and
otherized. A polite version of this is to exoticize Hinduism as a
property of the 'South Asian' geography. The
result is that Hinduism's claims of a universalism that rivals the West
are denied. In fact, attempts to position Hinduism as a world religion
invite insults from those who see this as Hindutva Nationalism and who
dismiss without consideration its merits as a competitor to Western
worldviews. This Myth
of Radical Otherness is used to protect American culture from
equivalent scrutiny and blame as others are normally subject to:
However,
the massive amounts of appropriations in the past to build 'Western'
civilization prove that when it suits the West's self interest it has no
difficulty to understand others. For example:
This is
why the rediscovery and proper documentation and dissemination of the
West's unacknowledged debts to others is an important academic project,
because this would demolish the Myth of Radical Otherness. Some
years ago, the huge Cathedral in Challenge
the resistance to Constructive Hinduism: Study
the history of Constructive Christian Theology to point out its series
of reconstructions over many centuries. Study
Hinduism's history of constructions to show that this is nothing new,
nor is it a violation of any canonized or frozen tradition. In fact,
constructive theology is truer to the spirit of changing smritis
of Hinduism than it is to Christianity's canonized History-Centrism. Refute
the scholarship that negates Hinduism as a world religion. The typical
arguments used against the legitimacy of Hinduism include the following:
Refute
the 'frozen in time' glorification of 'eternal India', essentialized as
'mystical' contrasted against 'rationality' - now internalized by too
many Hindus. (In the doctrine of white people's Manifest Destiny, one of
the criteria for declaring others to be 'unfit to self-govern' was
'irrationality'. Furthermore, 'mysticism' in Western history has
occupied a less honorable place than in Explore
innovative solutions for today based on Indic traditions: The
Hindu ashrama system of four life stages, each with its own norms
for dignity and its own dharma, provides many resources for
socioeconomic and mental health applications. This can be developed into
theoretical frameworks for managing aging with dignity, and managing the
fear of death and 'running-out-of-time' anxieties that haunt Westerners. The
world population is expected to reach 9 billion by mid century, and the
Western lifestyle has been sold successfully as the global standard of
expectation and legitimacy.
The
effectiveness of Hindu dana and Christian charity must be
compared using quantitative methods. The sums spent must be seen
in light of the tangible results produced, so that the efficiencies in
the use of funds may be compared. Much has been written about Christian
charity in
Hinduism's
adhyatmika technologies for embodied knowing could be
applied as antidotes against a variety of body alienations and counter
productive body fetishes: plastic surgery, anorexia, sexual orientation
dogmas, mental health, addictions... The jati
structure (as distinct from caste) must be seen in light of growing
multiculturalism in Western societies, a trend which is inevitable with
globalization. Jatis provided identity-with-mutual-respect,
giving both a sense of internal coherence and belonging and without the
theological imperative to conquer others or make them the 'same'. (Wars
have existed in non-Monotheistic societies, but usually not driven by
religious mandates.) Freedom from
History-Centrism is a solution to the clash of civilizations.
Denial of this clash by the left is merely an evasion of the deep-rooted
problems caused by History-Centrism. Hinduism offers spirituality
(which Communism admits it cannot eradicate), yet in a manner that is
free from History. Refute
common presuppositions in many disciplines: Hinduism
has been disassembled into parts that are taken in isolation and reduced
to prepackaged conclusions, which are then blindly applied in various
humanities disciplines and mass culture. At each stage of this pipeline
of misinformation, the conclusions from prior stages are simply assumed
without enough critical examination. For
example, as per Prof. Paranjape (English Department, JNU), it is now the
trend in English Departments everywhere to apply a few standard frames
in examining Indian texts, movies, art, history, society, etc. These
frames are as follows:
Meanwhile,
positive aspects of Hindu culture are omitted, including: yoga,
meditation, vegetarianism, ecological theologies, history of Indian
science/technology, history of Indian economy prior to colonial
disruption, etc. Because these themes would demolish the negative
stereotypes, students are discouraged from pursuing them on the basis
that they are not the 'real' Hinduism, i.e. they are not Hinduphobic.
Those who persist in pursuing these topics are attacked as
'chauvinistic', 'killers of Muslims', 'rapists' and 'fascists', and
other demonology that has become standard weaponry. Therefore,
literary and critical theories are taught with the specific goal
to make students apply a given tool box of theories and derive the
predefined negative set of conclusions about Indian culture. This is
done in literary analysis, cultural studies, political science,
sociology, etc. One who
is able to prove his/her competence at using the 'theories' imported
from the West to reach one or more of the standard set of established
stereotypes is advanced forward as a 'scholar'. The better the style and
more unusual the data the more useful the person is considered to be. This has
turned a whole generation of Indian writers into 'hunters' looking for
specific demons in Indian culture. It reminds one of the recent In
conclusion, the Constructive Hinduism Project should also engage various
other disciplines and cannot be isolated to Religious Studies. [1]Neo-Hinduism
is the Western influenced watered down version that is pop Hinduism
today. [2]Perennialism
must be differentiated from New Age, but the former led to the latter
because of dilution of rigor and under pop demands. F. Schuon, a pioneer
of Perennialism, does not speak about equality or identity between
traditional forms but about a transcendental unity. Also, Guenon
agrees with me that Abrahamic religions necessarily limit their
exotericism by their theological and moral views, while Hinduism does
not. Perennialists were also severe critics of New Age: Guenon was one
of the first scholars to offer a radical critique of theosophy, of
Vivekananda's neo-Hinduism, and of theories by Paul Lecour, a pioneer of
New Age. (In 'Theosophy, History of a pseudo-religion' and in his
'General Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines', he
highlights the mistakes made by Westerners on Hinduism). Nevertheless, I
locate all these on the same spectrum of (mis) appropriation from
Hinduism: Some did it more sincerely and authentically than others, but
in the long run they fed off of each other and the result has been
disastrous for the Hindu psyche. Westerners' harm was much less than
that caused by Hindu leaders' own internalizing of Western mappings in
the spirit of sameness. [3]Not
all gurus slipped into this trap. Prabhupada, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami
Dayananda Saraswati, and many others remained authentic. On the other
hand, Self Realization Fellowship and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are examples
of those who are promoting genericized spirituality that plays to the
new age market. Ramakrishna Mission and Chinmaya Mission are examples
where the founders were authentic, but which subsequently diluted their
authenticity by resorting to the sameness syndrome for the sake of PR,
political correctness, and possibly out of fear of being different than
the dominant culture. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi remained true to Vedas as
being distinct, despite the fact that he lost the majority of his white
followers to U-Turns once it became clear to them that his generic TM
program was only an introduction to deeper Vedic teachings. Yogi Amrit
Desai, who trained the largest number of white yoga teachers in the US
over a period of 30 years, avoided dilution, but he was dismissed by his
institution's trustees over alleged 'sexual misconduct', and the new
Western owners have drifted away from Hinduism. [4]
Many Western liberals/leftists do detest the classical Western heritage.
They have waged a long-term and concerted attack against the Western
literary canon. They often portray the West's great historical thinkers
as 'dead white guys', ridicule and attack their own Judeo-Christian past
(which is then, unfortunately, extended to all other religions, and
'religion' itself), etc. Many of the leftist intellectuals who have
dominated American academia clearly have an ideologically driven
crypto-Marxist agenda. What is 'good' in their eyes isn't necessarily
what is explicitly Western, but what represents the 'oppressed',
the 'disenfranchised', the 'lower' class, race, religion, gender, ethnic
group, language, etc., in any given perceived (on their part)
antithetical social-cultural coupling. Yet, their theories often embed
deep and invisible Biblical epistemologies, and, furthermore, they have
failed in impacting the West's own mainstream power structure while
having colonized [5]'Constructive
Christianity' has been a project to protect the core idea of a
unique historical revelation. Hence, it is a system of Christian apology
of finding ways to incorporate new facts (using science and/or U-Turns
from other plundered traditions) while pretending that it is all from
the single original source (which can be made to say anything). Hinduism
does not need that kind of construction because it does not have that
kind of History-Centric problem to begin with. What it needs is
expressions of the Truth gained from the adhyatmika experience
for contemporary times, as well as new sociopolitical smritis for today. This
is precisely what people like Aurobindo and others were up to.
'Constructions' without adhyatmika experience is what many Hindutva
politicians have been doing. [6]
In Hinduism, the importance of (i) tradition (agama-pramana),
(ii) lines of succession (sampradaya-parampara), and (iii) the
sacredness of places (tirthas) due to sacred occurrences that happened
there, are all important in preserving the teachings of Dharma. However,
the subtle but critical point is that if all the above were lost one
would still have the Truth revealed inwardly via yoga and meditation.
Abrahamic religions are history-dependent, whereas Hinduism merely uses
the examples of concrete instances of Truth revealed in what we call
history as guides and tools for personal self-realization. Thus,
Hinduism is not history-dependent. [7]Evangelical
Christians, despite being the dominant American theological and
political force, do not speak for the esoteric strands that are not History-Centric.
Esoteric interpreters of the Bible map Indic Adhyatma-vidya on to
Platonic metaphysics and consider the events of Sacred history and the
Prophets as contingent manifestations of eternal Principles such as
Logos. The esoteric interpretation of the Bible does not speak of the
Original Sin as a sexual act between Adam and Eve. The symbol of the
Tree (of knowledge) evokes rather an orientation of the will towards the
world and duality, a subversion of the sprit by the soul. The Revelation
and eschatological events are events in the Soul that any being on the
spiritual path is potentially able to turn into an inner reality. The
Perennialists would say that history-centrism is the result of the
intellectual limitations of fundamentalist Evangelists. However, the
Christianity that is 'on the ground' that Hindus must deal with, both in
the form of proselytizers playing havoc in India and in the form of the
geopolitical projection of Manifest Destiny, is not what Ivy League
professors and their followers would like us to imagine. [8]A
Sufi academic scholar wrote to me the following in defense of her
tradition (paraphrased by me): “There were numerous debates in
ancient Islam about the status of the Koran. It is absolutely necessary
to distinguish between the 'Mother of the Book' and the physical Koran
which cannot seriously be considered eternal or of non-human origin. The
Sufi tradition distinguishes between the earthly Kaaba and the celestial
one. Islamic History-Centrism is the result of degeneration of its
traditional intellectuality and of the development of politicized
schools of theology. The present situation only reflects the views that
prevailed for political reasons.” My response to her was that
Sufis represent around 1% or so of the worldwide Muslim population and
that Islam as experienced popularly is best understood based on what is
preached in the Mosque on Fridays and not what a few elitist
intellectuals would like to project it to be externally. [9]Antonio
deNicolas explains the difference as follows: “The Abrahamic
religions base themselves on the discontinuous, while Hinduism bases
itself on the continuous. Discontinuous based religions believe in a God
that is unique, comes from the outside, and dictates eternal laws. The
continuous religions make a God or gods as they practice internally the
discipline of will development for decision making as the paradigm of
the gods (different brain centers) demand according to the dharma in
front of the individual. The discontinuous religions base their practice
on the left brain, theoretical, conceptual descriptions of the path they
want to follow and as convenient. The continuous religions base their
practice on memory, imagination, and experience using the conceptual,
theoretical left brain only as an instrument of translation. The
discontinuous religions are imperialistic because one brain dominates
all others, while the continuous religions base their practice on the
ability to modulate all the brains and find a harmony leading to
moksha.” 10i]
Using the modern language of trusts, one may say that (i) Jesus
established the Trust by contributing his suffering; (ii) the Church
(long after Jesus' death) claimed the role of Trustee in perpetuity;
(iii) the Beneficiaries are all those who join the History-Centric Grand
Narrative; and (iv) the Distributions from the Trust to the
Beneficiaries are Redemption from all their Sins. According to the
Biblical Apocalypse, all Beneficiaries thus Saved are scheduled to be
flown to Heaven and live there in Eternity. All those remaining will be
massacred by Jesus personally when he returns at the End of Time which
is just around the corner. [11]It
is claimed to have been 'coming soon' for 1900 years based on the Book
of Revelation in the Bible. [12]The
Christian (especially Thomist) idea is that people have a soul
like the property of a person. This soul is a metaphysical appendage of
the person similar to the physical appendage of a spleen or a lung.
Thus, a soul can be lost, sold or injured. This is a radically different
notion from that of atman. [13]Hindu
scripture – both shruti and smriti - is also packed with
ethical norms, laws, proscriptions and prescriptions. The Bhagavad Gita
is full of descriptions of right and wrong behavior; the Yoga-Sutras of
Patanjali outline the yamas and niyamas, etc., etc. While
it is true that the Manusmriti was not the 'law of the land' in Hindu
India previous to the British Raj, the overall genre of the dharma-shastras
were, nonetheless, always important guides for Indian/Hindu governance
generally. The difference between the Abrahamic versus the Indic view of
religiously acceptable behavior is that the former is a morality-based
system in an ethnically parochial and sectarian morality sense (thus
kosher laws, for example); i.e., a morality that is externally
imposed. The latter is more of an ethically based system
(internally cultivated) and focuses on the cultivation of inner virtues
and excellences, somewhat akin to both Platonic and Aristotelian ethics.
This has to do with the absence of yoga in Abrahamic religions, as least
as a central feature of spiritual advancement (i.e. lack of adhyatmika)
and the over-emphasis placed upon affirmation of faith in History. [14]Plus
for X and Y to be interchangeably equated means that they must
necessarily be the same in every respect. [15]
Serious purva-paksha analysis died with the birth of
neo-Hinduism. Hindu philosophy declined from serious and systematic
critiquing of other systems to then merely serving as a
pseudo-intellectual tool. [16]
While these are important issues in their own right, they have caused
Hindus to get stuck in the minutia while forgetting the larger, more
important, picture.
|
