How Can Hindus Unite?
The common language of Hinduism must depart from the
dominance of Shankaran Advaita
BY SRINIVAS SUDHINDRA
AMIDST THE GLOBALIZATION OF DIVERSE PHILOSOPHIES, Hindus are trying
to establish a unique place for themselves. This requires a unique terminology
that explains Hinduism, not in a Western framework but on its own terms. Some
of our leaders are attempting such a representation of Hinduism, but the ground
beneath them is shaky. Their efforts invite ridicule, as they have chosen a
terminology which discounts or entirely disregards major streams of Hindu
thought. Thus, individual streams of Hinduism are ignoring or just talking at each
other. For unity to succeed, leaders must use a terminology that is inclusive
and respectful of the diverse branches that make up the tree of Hinduism.
In
current definitions of Hinduism, the dominant terminology is that of Advaita,
as defined by Shankara’s Mayavada: “brahma satyam, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva
na parah” (loosely translated as “God alone is real, the world is illusory, the
individual is none other than God”). This has become part of the defacto
popular definition of the Hindu worldview. Wikipedia says, “It is the Smarta
view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West as Smarta belief includes
Advaita belief and the first Hindu saint who significantly brought Hinduism to
the West was Swami Vivekananda, an adherent of Advaita.”
Swami
Vivekananda was one of the earliest to try to project Hinduism as a unified and
consistent philosophy. At the Ethical Society, Brooklyn, New York, 1894, he
said, “We believe in a God, the Father of the universe, infinite and
omnipotent. But if our soul at last becomes perfect, it also must become
infinite. But there is no room for two infinite unconditional beings, and hence
we believe in a Personal God, and we ourselves are He.”
Swami
Vivekananda was selling Advaita not as Advaita but as Hinduism. He mostly
ignores the other diverse Hindu streams, such as the Vaishnavite, Saivite and
Shakta sampradayas. In truth, many Hindu traditions are vehemently opposed to
Shankara’s concepts of Mayavada and identity of the individual with Brahman.
Each stream of Hinduism has its own unique, rich traditions (some much older
than Shankara) and a right to stand on its own. Advocate Shankara’s Advaita all
you want, but do not reduce the term “Hinduism” to mean just his form of
Advaita. Shankara’s Advaita alone does not hold the copyright over the term
Hinduism.
However,
in influential circles, it is the Advaitins who hold most positions of power.
Consider the recent “Hindu Good News” initiative (hinduismgoodnews.com), which claims to
speak on behalf of all Hindus. “And we, every one of us, are endowed with the
same potential as Jesus, to uncover this divinity within ourselves in the here
and now—without the need for someone else’s past sacrifice.” This again
endorses the “jivo brahmaiva na parah” view of Advaita in a subtle and indirect
way. The words “same potential” here is not agreeable to other Hindu
traditions. It ignores the Vedic hierarchy of beings, the distinction between
and among devatas, rishis and manavas, etc. The intent which got lost in
translation is that the nature of one’s Atman is the same as everyone else’s,
i.e., Sat, Chit and Ananda. But while Hindus agree on the nature of Self,
traditions differ on whether or not every individual has the same potential for
moksha.
When
the non-Advaita traditions enter into a conversation about Hinduism, they are
forced to do one of the following:
i) ignore their own beliefs, i.e., multiplicity of Atman or the reality of the material world; ii) engage in incoherent conversations where the speaker and audience have different understanding of the terminology used; iii) declare that they do not belong to Hinduism! Their attempt to communicate their beliefs is doomed to failure. They are marginalized and forgotten in the mainstream debate comparing Hinduism with other religions.
i) ignore their own beliefs, i.e., multiplicity of Atman or the reality of the material world; ii) engage in incoherent conversations where the speaker and audience have different understanding of the terminology used; iii) declare that they do not belong to Hinduism! Their attempt to communicate their beliefs is doomed to failure. They are marginalized and forgotten in the mainstream debate comparing Hinduism with other religions.
Individually,
many of the Hindu traditions lack the means and expertise to stand up on their
own against the might of the West. Hence, there is a need for a collective
front to engage with the West. However, we do not have to whitewash our
differences to put up a unified face in front of other religions. So, it is
important to develop a terminology that respects and represents the diverse
philosophical streams that make up Hinduism.
To
develop such a terminology, scholar and writer Rajiv Malhotra suggests that we
avoid terms that have differences within a homogenous group (in this case,
Hinduism) and select terms that point to differences between heterogeneous
groups (i.e., Western religions). Based on such criteria, the terminology for
Hinduism might better include/exclude the following.
Not
Maya but Ajnana: Avoid using terms like maya but talk about ajnana (ignorance)
being the condition of Atman/Jiva in this world. This concept is mostly
interpreted the same by all Hindus and also differs from the Abrahamic concept
of humans as sinners.
Not
Unity but Sat-Chit-Ananda: Avoid phrases like “Unity of Brahman with Atman” to
explain Moksha, a concept with varying interpretations. Instead, talk about the
nature of a liberated Atman as Sat, Chit and Ananda, something we all agree on.
Not
Advaita but Antaryamin: Avoid using concepts like “Single/Multiple Atman” (a
contentious subject among Hindus). Instead, speak of the Antaryamin nature of
God, as the omnipresent Divine Indweller of every being, to contrast our faith
with Abrahamic religions where God is in Heaven and not within the Soul, i.e.,
not omnipresent.
Not
Mithya but Yuga Chakra: Avoid phrases like “The world is mithya/illusion,”
which is specific to Shankara’s philosophy. Talk instead about our common,
accepted view of the cyclic nature of the world, creation, maintenance,
destruction, in contrast to the Abrahamic concept of linear time with emphasis
on just the creation aspect.
Such a change in approach can serve two
purposes: It can unite Hindus and at the same time provide a platform to
critique the West. Developing an inclusive language for Hinduism is a must,
before entering into a dialogue with the West. The language of Hinduism must
reflect the ethos on which it is built, i.e., unity in diversity.
(SRINIVAS SUDHINDRA, 32, is a
software engineer by profession and is currently based in Bengaluru. Email: srinivas.sudhindra@gmail.com)
D I D Y O U K N O W ?
The Sacred Lotus Flower
THE LOTUS FLOWER, NELUMBO NUCIFERA, possessing both
medicinal and culinary uses, has long been significant and sacred to many
cultures. Throughout history it has represented the inner depths of man,
reflecting in its prepossessing petals the polychromatic patterns of our
universe. Now, yet another of this flower’s wonders has been brought to light.
An
international team of researchers from the University of Adelaide has sequenced
and described the lotus genome in a paper published online at genomebiology.com. Their research
delves into the evolution of this ancient plant, which has apparently been
cultivated as an edible crop for more than 7,000 years. One of their most
interesting findings is that the lotus flower has the astounding ability to
regulate its body temperature, much like warm-blooded mammals.
It
was found that over a two-to three-day period the lotus was able to keep a
constant temperature of around 32-34 degrees by generating and controlling its
own heat, while the surrounding environment varied by up to 30 degrees. A
biochemical pathway was found which the plant uses for its temperature
regulation. This pathway can be switched on or off, depending on whether more
or less heat is needed. This generated heat, along with the flower’s aromas,
apparently makes the lotus blossoms particularly attractive to pollinating
insects.
B A S I C S
A Hindu View of Evil
EVIL IS OFTEN LOOKED
UPON AS A force against God. But the Hindu knows that all forces are God’s
forces, even the waywardness of adharma. This is sometimes
difficult to understand when we see the pains and problems caused by men
against men. Looking deeper, we see that what is called evil has its own
mysterious purpose in life. Yes, bad things do happen. Still, the wise never
blame God, for they know these to be the return of man’s self-created karmas,
difficult but necessary experiences for his spiritual evolution.
Whenever we are injured or hurt, we
understand that our suffering is but the fulfillment of a karma we once
initiated, for which our injurer is but the instrument who, when his karma
cycles around, will be the injured. Those who perform seemingly evil deeds are
not yet in touch with the ever-present God consciousness of their immortal soul
When the outer, or lower,
instinctive nature dominates, one is prone to anger, fear, greed, jealousy,
hatred and backbiting. When the intellect is prominent, arrogance and
analytical thinking preside. When the superconscious soul comes forth, the
refined qualities are born—compassion, insight, modesty and the others.
The animal instincts of the young
soul are strong. The intellect, yet to be developed, is nonexistent to control
these strong instinctive impulses. When the intellect is developed, the
instinctive nature subsides. When the soul unfolds and overshadows the
well-developed intellect, this mental harness is loosened and removed. When we
encounter wickedness in others, let us be compassionate, for truly there is no
intrinsic evil.
Om Tat Sat
(My humble salutations to Sadguru Sri Sivaya Subramuniyaswami
ji, Satguru Bodhianatha Velayanswami ji, Hinduism Today and Sri Srinivas Sudhindra ji for the collection)
0 comments:
Post a Comment