HINDU DHARM –
GLOBAL RELIGION OF THE MODERN WORLD
Author – Anil Chawla
All over India and in almost every part of
the world, there are millions of
people who call themselves Hindu. Yet, the
question “Who is a Hindu?” is
often raised. Some people define Hinduism on
geographical basis, while
some others do so on the basis of system of
worship and belief; there are
others who link Hinduism to ancient Indian
culture. This controversy
about definition is unique to Hinduism. Other
religions like Islam,
Christianity etc. are devoid of any such
dispute since they are based on
one book. The belief in a sacred book is
fundamental to such religions.
Anyone believing in the book is a follower
while anyone not believing in
the book is an outsider to the religion. A
Hindu is under no compulsion to
believe in any book or any prophet or even a
single system of worship or
hall of worship. The freedom that a Hindu has
makes it difficult to define
Hinduism.
Before proceeding any further, one must
understand the historical
background that has led to this controversy.
Hindus have been subjected
to nearly a thousand years of slavery. The
struggle for existence that
Hindus faced during this long period is
unique in human history. To
understand this glorious struggle, one must
compare Indian history with
American history. It was approximately the
same time when a group of
persons reached America
and another group of persons reached India.
Both the groups were from the same part of
the world and were of the
same white race. At that time, population of America and India was nearly
equal. Today, the original inhabitants of America have
become almost
extinct. Their civilization, culture and
religion is almost dead; there are of
course some remnants which are objects of
wonder and are kept as curios
displayed in a museum. The atrocities in India were
identical to those in
America, but the original inhabitants of India survived.
A magnificent
building that was an inspiration to many has
been demolished completely
and what has been left behind is only a mass
of rubble.
All the traditional institutions of the
Indian society were systematically
destroyed during nearly a thousand years of
foreign rule (first Islamic and
later British, Portugese and French). Books
were burnt. Persons who were
active in preservation and growth of
knowledge were forced by all
possible means to give up their pursuits.
Attempts were made to remove
all symbols of Hindu religion from the
surface of the earth. A grand
civilization was reduced to ashes. Today,
Hindu finds himself sitting with
these ashes and a few semi-burnt pieces of
what was once a magnificent
building. He has a dream to reconstruct the
grand building, to get back to
the glory that seems almost fictional.
When Lech Walesa became the first
non-communist President of Poland
he said that it is easy to make fish-soup
from a fish but it is very difficult
to make a fish out of fish-soup. If the same
example were to be applied to
the Indian society and nation, one finds that
India
does not even have the
soup - the colonial masters drank it. There
are only a few skeletal
remains. The present generation of Hindus has
to reconstruct a new living
civilization and rebuild the cultural edifice
from these skeletal remains.
Hindus have survived the long arduous journey
but have lost a lot. The
biggest loss has been of self-identity. A
person who has just escaped from
a big terrible fire is primarily concerned
with his burnt skin and the
wounds rather than the torn clothes. The
first fifty years of postindependent
India have been spent on arranging for essentials
for
livelihood. Forgetting the old wounds, taking
control of the life as it is, the
Indian psyche has slowly started looking at
its own identity and has
started asking questions about itself. The
question “Who is a Hindu?” is
the first step in this search for
self-identity. It is an attempt to seek the
foundation stone for Hindu Reconstruction and
Renaissance.
It will be relevant to discuss the various
definitions of Hindu in vogue.
One definition defines Hindu on geographical
basis. It is said that the
word “Hindu” is derived from the word
“Sindhu” based on the contention
that the aggressors from the Western side
started calling persons living
near river Sindhu as Hindu. Geographical
definition of Hindu treats every
person living in Indian sub-continent or
having some emotional
attachment to the Indian sub-continent as a
Hindu. This is possibly the
most narrow and restricted definition of
Hindu. A slave often starts seeing
himself through the eyes of the master. If it
is accepted that Hindu is a
distorted version of Sindhu, it will also
have to be accepted that there was
no Hindu in existence before the attack from
the western side. If it is
accepted that only a person living on Indian
soil is Hindu, the problem
would arise about Hindu temples of Thailand. It is
a well accepted fact
that at one time, Hindu religion and culture
exerted strong influence on
the whole of Asia.
If Hindu religion is based on devotion towards a block
of land, it is obvious that Hinduism cannot
spread beyond that block of
land. If an appeal is made to the Hindus
living across the world to be
devoted to the Indian soil, such an appeal
can possibly serve some vested
interests but it will block the growth of
Hindu religion. In such a case,
instead of becoming a global ideological
revolution, Hindu religion will
become a vehicle to satisfy the interests of
inhabitants of a particular
land-mass.
The traditionalist definition of Hindu
prescribes that anyone accepting the
ancient Indian culture and traditions is
Hindu. The philosophical
bankruptcy of the traditionalist definition
is of the same order as that of
the geographist definition. The
traditionalist mind is inherently
conservative and is opposed to all change and
growth. Everything old is
considered good, while everything modern is
looked down upon. The
traditionalist treats the “puratan” (ancient) as “sanatan” (eternal or
natural or essential) and sacred. The
traditionalist invokes “bhakti”
(devotion and faith) to close the mental
doors to any fresh thought. This
is contrary to the concept of Hindu. A closed
mind cannot be the
distinguishing feature of a Hindu. If Hindu
religion was a closed-minded
religion, there would have been no Upanishads and Puranas after Vedas.
Diversity of opinion and clash of opinions is
a frequent phenomenon in
ancient Hindu texts. Considering the ancient
as sacred will block the
growth of Hinduism. Moreover, when only a few
remnants of the ancient
are available and the circumstances in the
present time and world (deshkal)
are completely different, it is necessary to
begin the job of
reconstruction and renaissance by starting
from first principles and
fundamental values. The old can be a guide,
but it is necessary to give up
the presumption that everything ancient is
sacred. Hence, the
traditionalist definition of Hinduism is not
only incomplete and shallow, it
is a big obstacle in the growth of Hinduism.
Often attempts have been made to define
Hinduism on the basis of some
beliefs and/or symbols. For example - Hindu
is one who worships Ram;
Hindu is one who worships the cow; Hindu is
one who worships Krishna;
Hindu is one who considers Ganges
to be sacred; Hindu is one who
considers the plant of tulasi as sacred; Hindu is one who begins his
worship with OM. Each of these
is a belief of a section of the Hindus.
However, any one of the above individually or
some/all of the above
taken together cannot be considered to be the
fundamental basis of
Hinduism. The diversity of opinions and
contradictions are too strong. A
worshipper of Ram is a Hindu just as a
worshipper of formless Supreme
Being is also a Hindu; Ganges
is considered sacred by many Hindus while
there are others who have ridiculed it; idol
worshippers are Hindus while
there are some Hindus who are opposed to all
idolatry worship; the
devotees of OM and Gayatri Mantra are Hindus just as someone who
considers Krishna to be his/her lover is also a Hindu; there are Hindus
who follow a devotional life and there are
Hindus who believe in selfattainment
through work or knowledge. Clearly, Hinduism
cannot be
defined on the basis of any one belief or
tradition or symbol.
There is one practical definition which is
the most well accepted definition
of Hindu. Every person whose parents or at
least father is/was a Hindu
and who has not accepted any other religion
is a Hindu. For the past more
than hundred years the rulers of India and the
so-called guardians of
Hinduism have accepted and adopted this
definition. As per this definition
a person can only be born as a Hindu, there
is no way by which a person
may adopt Hinduism or be converted to
Hinduism. The damage that this
definition has done to Hinduism has probably
not been done by any other
definition. At the time when Hinduism spread
from Egypt to Japan, it is
certain that there was no such definition of
Hinduism. The damage that
Hinduism has suffered by stopping the entry
of people from other
religions is possibly much more than the
damage done by Christian
missionaries and Islamic aggressors. Various
visionaries like Swami
Vivekananda, Swami Shradhananda etc. had in
unambiguous terms
pointed to the damage that Hinduism has
suffered on this account. If
Hindus are serious about Hindu Renaissance
and dream of a glorious
future for Hinduism in every part of the
world, it will be necessary to
make new Hindus in every nook and corner of
the world. To do this
Hindus must first free themselves of this heredity
based (racial) definition
of Hindu.
The definition of Hindu that seems plausible
treats the word “Hindu” as
being made up of two words Ha + Indu. Ha means the sky and Indu
means the moon. This can be interpreted to
mean that one who spreads
cool light like the moon in the sky is a
Hindu. Another word associated
with Hindu is Bharat. Often the word Bharat is associated with the name
of a King. The more logical interpretation is
however to treat BHARAT as
made up of two words Bha + Rat. Bha means Light and Rat means the
one who is full of or saturated with. In
other words Bharat means The one
Who is full of and spreads light. Looked at
carefully, Bharat and Hindu
have identical meanings. The word Bharatvarsh has often been used for a
large part of land. Varsh means varsha or rain. Combining the meanings
of Bharat and varsh we can understand that the word Bharatvarsh was
used for the region where the Hindu knowledge
rained or had influence. It
is not proper to treat Bharat as only the name of a part of land. Instead of
the geographical definition of Hindu as the
one who lives in the land
known as Bharat, it will be proper to say that wherever in the world there
are Hindus, they will be full of light and
spread light and there will be
Bharat.
Another meaning of the word Hindu can also be
considered. In Sanskrit,
ocean has been called as Indujanak, the father of Indu (moon). The
meaning of the word Ha in a Sanskrit dictionary is water as well as sky. If
we take a comprehensive view of the meanings
of Ha and Indu, we see
the complete universe from the ocean to the
sky in the word Hindu.
Hence, it will be proper to conclude that a
Hindu is someone who believes
in everything from the ocean to the sky.
The totality of the sky including the earth
and the oceans is named as
Universe or Cosmos and is known by the word Brahm in Sanskrit. This
Universe or Cosmos is shashwat or eternal, in other words it has always
been and shall always be, though it may keep
changing. Hindu sees
himself as a part of the Universe or Cosmos.
A Hindu’s belief, faith,
actions, lifestyle, thoughts should be in
accordance with the rules of the
Cosmos. There could possibly be different
views about the Cosmos
between two persons due to different
perspectives. However, if the
difference of views is due to different
perspectives and not due to preconceived
notions, both the persons, though holding
divergent views are
Hindus.
While understanding the word Hindu, it is also necessary to understand
the word Dharm. The
word Dharan and Dharm have the same
root.
Dharan means to wear or to carry and Dharm refers to what
is put on.
Dharm can be compared to clothing. Just as a person changes his clothes
as per the time-place and his own personal
requirements, the Dharm for a
Hindu is constantly changing. This concept of
Dharm is neither possible
nor imaginable for any one-book-based
religion. A hindu’s Dharm, on one
hand helps him live his life as per the
requirements of the cosmos and on
the other hand, assists him in acting as per
his own nature and aptitude.
Just as cosmos or universe is considered to
be constantly changing but
shashwat or eternal, Dharm is considered to be under constant change
but still sanatan or permanent.
Oneness with the Cosmos and the concept of a Dharm that is in
accordance with this oneness can be said to
be Hindu Dharm. This
complex philosophy has been elaborated by the
aphoristic words SATYAM
SHIVAM SUNDARAM. The three words define the Hindu way of
life as
completely and correctly as is ever possible.
An English translation of the
aphorism can be Truth, Universal Welfare
& Nice feelings of the Inner
Being. The translation is not very accurate.
(Incidentally, it may be
mentioned that Greek and early Christian
authors also seemed to believe
in this triad of Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram.
Augustine devotes much
space in The City of God to a discussion of Greek philosophy. In the
Augustinian synthesis of Christ and Plato,
the classical triad of virtues -
truth, beauty, and goodness - become part of
the Christian ethic.)
It is important to understand each of the
concepts to fully appreciate the
Hindu mind.
SATYAM – The first fundamental condition for Hindu Dharm is Satyam or
truth. The cosmos or the world is experienced
by us through our senses
and we make an image of the world or parts of
it on our mind. If the
image corresponds to the world as it exists,
the image is truth or else it is
not truth. Our capacities and abilities to
see, observe, experience and
understand are limited. Hence, our ability to
create mental images of the
world is limited. Just as four blind men
described an elephant in four
different ways, we make different images of
the world. For example, a
biologist and a poet look at a flower in
different ways. Hindu accepts this
difference in perspective and therefore opinions,
while at the same time
giving utmost importance to Satyam or truth. If any idea or thought is
against truth, a Hindu can never accept it.
The evaluation of the correspondence between
the image and the world is
by means of evidence or proof. There can be
an epistemological debate
about the suitability of different types of
possible evidence and proof. It is
likely that some types of evidence are
accepted by one while the same
types of evidence are rejected by others.
Such a difference of opinion is
well-accepted. For example, the experience of
God by the inner self has
been accepted as sufficient evidence for the
existence of God by some
while others have refused to accept such
experience as evidence. This led
to different versions of truth for theists
and atheists. But both are Hindus
because both believe in Truth. Hinduism is
possibly the only major
religion of the world which accepted atheism.
It is important to compare the commitment of
a Hindu towards truth with
that of the followers of other religions. For
a Christian, every word in Bible
is the ultimate truth. During the reign of
the Church, any attempt to even
collect evidence that might contradict
something written in the Bible was
considered blasphemy and was punishable by
death. Apparently, some
holy book says that a man has more teeth and
ribs than a woman has.
During the medieval period, it was blasphemy
and criminal offence to try
to gather evidence against the sacred book by
counting the teeth or ribs
of men and women. For hundreds of years no
one in Europe could hence
count teeth or ribs. In any single-book-based
religion such problems are
likely to occur at some time or the other.
Both Christianity and Islam have
at some points in their history opposed
science since it clashed with the
truth as provided in their sacred books.
Hinduism has never and can never be opposed
to Science due to the
fundamental belief in truth. It was this
belief in truth that led to the
development and growth of science and
knowledge in ancient India. The
glow of science and knowledge made the Hindu
full of light and the region
that was illuminated by this shower of light
was called Bharatvarsh.
SHIVAM - After accepting Truth, it is necessary to go a step further and
look at the welfare of the world. Every act,
belief and thought of a human
being must be evaluated on the basis of the
criterion of welfare of the
world. An act or belief or thought is not
proper or acceptable if it does not
promote the welfare of the world even though
it may be based on Truth.
For example, a person’s strong desire may be
a reality or a truth but if
the satisfaction of the desire does not lead
to universal welfare, it is not
proper to permit the person to satisfy his
desire.
Just as there can be differences of opinion
and perception in matters
related to truth, there may be differences of
opinion regarding the
concept of universal welfare, which may
change from time to time and
from region to region and also based on the
nature and aptitude of
various individuals. Such differences of opinion
are well accepted and
though there may be debate or discussion to
resolve the differences,
there is no attempt to iron out all
differences and arrive at a uniform
standard code. The acceptance of differences
based on the needs of
place-time and individuals has led to Hindu
Dharm becoming different for
each person, for every region and from time
to time. However, if anyone
ignores the argument of welfare and advances
quotations from any book
as an argument, he is not a Hindu.
The concept of SHIVAM as universal welfare based on the realities of time
and place is deeply embedded in the Hindu
psyche. On various occasions
this has been demonstrated. For example India
was one of the first few
countries in the world to accept abortion
since the majority of the
population (Hindus) appreciated the benefits
of legalized abortion without
any religious restrictions. Even in matters
like giving electoral rights to
women there has been no dispute since the
issues are examined on
merits rather than on the basis of books
written a few centuries ago.
The examples of accepting contradictory
actions and beliefs based on
different ground realities are too numerous
to cite. There are Hindus who
are strictly vegetarians while there are
others who are permitted to eat
meat. There are Hindus who fast on some days
during the year while on
the same days there are Hindus who would eat
meat and offer meat to
their family deities. The opposites are
always justified by logic of welfare
or Shivam as might be
existing at that time and place.
SUNDARAM – Along with Satyam and Shivam, the third
fundamental
foundation stone of Hindu thought is Sundaram. Anything that leads to
nice (or “Su”)
feelings in the inner being of a person can be called as
SUNDARAM or aesthetic. It is very difficult to define the nice feelings in
the inner being and each person may have his
own opinion in the matter.
The purpose of all arts is to give pleasure
by creating nice aesthetic
feelings. A Hindu accepts all arts and
accepts each person’s version of
SUNDARAM. Hindu accepts freedom of the individual in this regard,
subject, of course, to Satyam and Shivam.
It may seem strange that something as obvious
as aesthetics needs to be
defined as a key fundamental block of a
belief system. Yet if we look at
the treatment of the subject by other
religions, the distinction is too
glaring. Islam treats all visual arts like
painting and sculpture as forbidden
and even puts strictures on music. Christian
churches have also from time
to time made attempts to prescribe what is right
and what is wrong in
arts. In more than five thousand years of
history of Hinduism there have
never been any attempts of similar nature.
SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM – the triad expresses completely and
comprehensively the essence of Hindu Dharm. It may well be asked that
which of the three is more important and in
case of conflict, which one
should be given priority. There have been
different opinions in this regard,
yet a prominent view has been that the
conflicts among the three are only
apparent. Deep within there is a unity in the
three elements of the triad.
So, any fundamental conflict is not possible.
This school of thought
believes that the aphorism literally
translates as Satyam is Shivam and
Shivam is Sundaram. In other words the aphorism affirms the unity
of the
triad. So a Hindu is expected to follow all
three elements of the triad and
give due importance to each in his life.
However, even while giving due
importance to all three, it is likely that an
individual may emphasize one
or the other element depending on one’s own
nature and aptitude. For
example, truth may be more important for a
scientist while aesthetics
may be the central concern for an artist.
Both are members of one unified
society and many such different persons
combine together to form a
balanced society which has the correct
combination of Satyam,
Shivam
and Sundaram.
SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM can also be expressed as Science, Ethics
and Art. Any one who accepts the triad as
fundamental basis of his belief
system is a Hindu, irrespective of his/her
geographic location, race,
national loyalties, system of worship, deity
of worship, food habits,
language, etc. Defined in this manner, Hindu Dharm becomes a truly
global religion of the modern world.
Acquiring strengths from its ancient
roots Hindu Dharm becomes the
human-values-based religion of the
modern scientific age. The ability to
constantly transform itself enables
Hindu Dharm to rejuvenate
and always be fresh and new. Hindu Dharm is
neither “opium for the masses” nor does it bind
anyone in perennial
chains. Hindu Dharm is the liberator of mankind and is an engine of
growth, prosperity and fulfillment for the
individual as well as for the
society on a long term sustainable basis.
From the muddy cesspool of history, one can
always pick some instances
that support the above view and also some
that do not. History cannot
and should not become the guide or touchstone
for philosophy. However,
surprisingly the above definition of Hindu Dharm finds extensive support
in an analysis of the Indian psyche as it
evolved over the centuries and
faced a diverse set of circumstances. But the
most surprising part comes
when one tries to understand the preachings
of Lord Jesus Christ in the
light of the basic principles of Hinduism.
If one studies the preachings of Lord Jesus
Christ, devoid of the views of
others who followed him as well as of the
various churches, one finds a
striking similarity between him and many
Hindu saints (for example Sai
Baba of Shirdi). The concept of church was
not given by Lord Jesus Christ.
Neither did the Lord write the Bible nor any
other book. It may not be
improper to say that the Lord was a Hindu.
The relationship between the
teachings of Lord Jesus Christ and the
essentials of Hinduism needs to be
studied. It may also be interesting to
explore the etymology of the word
Christianity which has an identical sound as
“KRISHNA NEETI” (the ethics
of Lord Krishna). This is not the subject of
this essay and will need more
research. However, based on initial
impressions, it may well be concluded
that Lord Jesus preached a version of
Hinduism and was crucified for his
revolutionary ideas. The scenario that seems
likely is that after the death
of Jesus, his followers started a process of
compromises which led to the
acceptance of Old Testament, writing of the
New Testament in a form
acceptable to the ruling classes and
foundation of the Church.
It may be further added that just as Lord
Jesus Christ’s sayings were
misused and distorted by Church, there are
attempts to narrow and
restrict Hinduism. The churchification of
Hinduism is a danger that needs
to be guarded against. In recent years,
people who know nothing of
Hinduism have emerged as the self-proclaimed
defenders of the faith.
They are interpreting Hinduism in their own
way and are declaring their
versions to be the official versions. For a
religion which does not even
prohibit the eating of human flesh,
vegetarianism and non-violence are
being declared as fundamental values. Hindus
are being asked to be loyal
to a geographic entity or a nation. There is
even an attempt to show that
Hindus are one race. The harm that such
ignorant proclaimed defenders
of the faith may inflict on Hinduism is
enormous. It must be remembered
that the dark ages of Europe were not a
result of anything that Lord Jesus
said.
European Renaissance was an attempt to break
the vice-like grip of the
church on all aspects of European life. It
was a revolt against the Church
and not against Lord Jesus Christ. As years
have passed, the influence of
church in European (and American) life has
decreased considerably.
Nowadays, a Christian takes almost all
important decisions of his life
based on his own self assessment and
intellect. The life of a Christian is
now regulated more and more by SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM though
he/she himself/herself would not define it
that way. Concern with
ecological considerations and serious
attempts to live life as per nature’s
laws can also be seen as an attempt to attain
the oneness with cosmos
which is most fundamental to Hinduism.
The move of the world to a more rational and
humane existence is in fact
a move towards Hinduism. It is time that
Hindus realized this and took up
the leadership in this ongoing historical
movement which has transformed
the world in the past four/five centuries. As
men and women across the
world (from all races and communities)
understand and adopt the “Global
Religion of the Modern World” – Hindu Dharm based on Satyam,
Shivam,
Sundaram – they will not only transform their own lives but will also make
the world a better place to live in.
Om Tat Sat
(Continued...)
(My
humble salutations to Sadguru Sri Sivaya
Subramuniyaswami ji, Sri
Anil Chawla ji and hindu samskrit dot com for the collection)
