Download RELIGION AND TRUTH: - Shap Working Party

RELIGION AND TRUTH:
SOME HINDU PERSPECTIVES
Dilip Kadodwala is Adviser for Religious
and Moral Education in the County of
Leicestershire and a member of the Shap
Working Party on World Religions in
Education.
For each complex question there might be a simple
answer: and it is bound to be glib or, at least, not
comprehensive. This much can be said with some
degree of certainty with regard to the question “What is
Truth in a Hindu context?” It is as well, therefore, first
to briefly unfurl some aspects of the broad canvas that is
Hinduism, before the patterns of ‘Truth’ can be traced,
as in a kaleidoscope.
SOME FEATURES OF HINDUISM
The term Hinduism is a relatively recent development
from the word ‘Hindu’ which was originally used to
refer to the people who lived beyond the river Indus
(which runs west of India’s present borders). It is now
estimated that at least 350,000 of the world’s 700
million Hindus reside in Britain, including those who
live around and beyond all directions of the Thames! It
is also important to remember that Hinduism is a
general term covering beliefs and practices which span
across some 4,000 years, as well as over an expanse of
lands, languages and ethnic groups. Moreover, the rich
and diverse Hindu tradition has no single founder figure,
no tightly defined creeds or doctrines and no single
central sacred book. Therefore, any search for truth in a
such a diverse setting will inevitably be selective rather
than comprehensive.
Lastly on this matter, where the Semitic religions
generally are given over to theological and ritual
orthodoxy amongst the followers of various sects and
can expect a large measure of consistency in terms of
belief and practice, such categorisations are not so easily
transferable to the Hindu tradition. Indeed it can be
claimed that any consistency in the paradoxical Hindu
world exists in its diversity. But this should not imply
disunity. The complex structure can be viewed more
usefully as one in which the constituent parts are interconnected, as in a web, to form a unity-in-diversity. The
Indologist Betty Heimann uses the image of a crystal to
describe this multiplex whole:
‘Whatever Man sees, has seen or will see, is just
one facet only, of a crystal. Each of these facets
from its due angle provides a correct view-point,
but none of them alone gives a true allcomprehensive picture. Each serves in its proper
place to grasp the whole, and all of them
combined come nearer to its full grasp. However,
even the sum of them all does not exhaust all
hidden possibilities of approach.’ ¹
Simply put, there is no one exclusive approach to the
whole, to the ‘Supreme Truth’. Any point of view
implicitly assumes that another perspective is possible,
in the otherwise common goal of seeking liberation,
moksha, from the cycle of samsara.
WHAT IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
TRUTH AND GOD?
One approach into the Hindu kaleidoscope of patterns is
to suggest that Truth and God are synonymous and that
religion is its embodiment. But in what ways does a
Hindu make sense of this suggestion?
The most widely accepted approach to describing the
religion is in terms of the concept of dharma. There are
several nuances of meanings attached to this term
including those of truth, order, duty and righteousness.
When sanatan dharma is used as a descriptor there are
two distinct meanings. One is a reference to the ever
present moral order of the universe: the other refers to
eternal law or universal order, constituted and
transcended by a particular deity (for instance Krishna
in the Vaishnavite tradition), which may also be
transcended by devotees through a process of
self-realisation, bhakti (love) and ‘union’ with their
deity.² This sense of dharma is the closest
approximation to the western understanding of religion.
Hence, many Hindus in common parlance will speak of
the Muslim dharma or the Christian dharma. Similarly,
they may also speak of Shiva or Krishna Dharma, as the
specific incarnations of Brahman and as pathways to
liberation.
ARE THERE AS MANY TRUTHS AS THERE
ARE GODS?
In the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, a seeker named
Vidagdha Sakalya approaches the sage Yajnavalkya
with the question, ‘How many gods are there,
Yajnavalkya?’ ‘...three hundred and three and three
thousand and three (=3306)’
‘Yes (OM)’, said he, ‘but how many gods are there
really (eva), Yajnavalkya? ‘Thirty-three’.
‘Yes’, he said, ‘but how many gods are there really,
Yajnavalkya?’ ‘Six’.
‘Yes’, he said, ‘but how many gods are there really,
Yajnavalkya?’ ‘One’.³
This is a clear illustration of what Hindus recognise as
the one Ultimate Reality, but one which has many
names and forms. It is like clay, which is one, but which
takes on various names and forms as in earthen vessels
or pots. The monastic strand of Hindu mysticism would
claim that the perception of the one is a higher vision of
the truth than the perception of the many. Moreover,
where believers in the monotheistic traditions would
make the claim that, ‘There is only one God’, a
distinctively Hindu assertion would be, ‘There is only
God’.
The suggestion being made here is that preferences for a
particular deity does not imply that other deities for
other people are inappropriate or mistaken. Rather as
Diana Eck puts it:
Hindu thought is most distinctive for its refusal
to make the one and the many into opposites. For
most, the manyness of the divine is not
superseded by oneness. Rather the two are held
simultaneously and are inextricably related.’
The paradox, but perhaps a contradiction to others, is
that the Truth is both absolute and relative through its
manifold manifestations, depending on the way you
perceive the patterns in the Hindu kaleidoscope.
Certainly, in the main, Hindus will assert the legitimate
capacity of human beings to approach or experience the
Absolute in a multitude of ways.
OTHER RELIGIONS AND HINDU
PERSPECTIVES
There is a well known Indian story which can, like all
good stories, have numerous meanings and applications.
The story is about six men who were blind. The first
man said. ‘Theres an elephant in the next village’. The
second man said ‘What is an elephant?’ The first man
replied, ‘I don’t know’. It soon became evident that
none knew what an elephant was and before long they
arrived at the village to find the elephant. The story goes
on to explain that each blind man felt the elephant and
each described it in different ways. They were in dispute
as to who was right. It was, the story tells us, the
elephant that intervened and said that each in his own
way was right.
One interpretation of this story could be that the
elephant is a symbol for the Supreme Reality Brahman, transcendent and yet immanent in the
universe; the sanatan dharma, in the sense of the eternal,
universal order, the ‘form’ of things as they are and the
power that keeps them as they are and not otherwise.
The blind men represent the attempts made by Hindus to
know and realise the truth that is Brahman. The Shiva
dharma or the Krishna dharma are, as it were, the
‘trunk’ and ‘tail’ of the ‘elephant’.
Another interpretation of this story could be in relation
to other religions or ways to God or Enlightenment. The
blind men represent humanity’s attempts to attain
salvation through the pathways of Islam, Christianity,
Sikhism, and so on. Of course, the metaphor cannot be
pressed too far before some difficulties appear. For
example, the view that all religions or pathways cannot
logically all be equally true: it is obviously the case that
the world’s major religions have some divergent views
vis a vis God, selves and nature. From a Hindu
perspective the issue is not so much that a particular
path is the only way, as much as one where the personal
path or ista-devata, the chosen deity, should enable one
to become a better Hindu, or a better Christian or a
better Sikh, and so on.
It is fair to assert that the Hindu tradition, by and large,
does not seek to proselytise, although the missionary
elements of the Hare Krishna Movement or the
Ramakrishna Mission, are notable exceptions. One of
the dominant images of Hinduism is its relative
tolerance of other religions, against the background of
its non-dogmatic outlook and its catholic inclusiveness.
Damodar Sharma is one, amongst many others, who
have highlighted the characteristics of tolerance, and
indeed, indifference within Hinduism.
‘Hinduism is not an aggressive religion, it is very
passive and tolerant. Hindus do not set out to
discredit other religions, nor do they show any
interest in converting non-Hindus’.5
Conversion is not thought to be appropriate, suggests
Sharma, since all human beings are subject to the
eternal universal order of sanatan dharma, even if they
may not be conscious of it. The general tendency toward
non-dogmatism has become a stark contrast to the
various conflicts, both sectarian and inter-religious,
which have flared up more recently in India. However,
it has to be acknowledged that such conflicts also have
the embers of fanaticism, nationalism and bigotry to fan
religious fires.
WHAT IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
TRUTH, RIGHTEOUSNESS AND BEHAVIOUR?
Reference has already been made to sanatan dharma, in
the sense of the ever present moral order of the universe.
Material nature, including human, animal and plant life
are all a part of this moral order. So, for example, the
dharma of fire is to burn; that of a parent to serve his or
her children. When dharma is linked with other concepts
- varna (class) and asrama (stage of life) - a coherent set
of guidelines for behaviour can be ascertained for
Hindus. The duty of the individual is to act in such a
way so that righteousness is achieved.
But what would count as appropriate behaviour, given
that no two Hindus are alike, and that they are different
even within the same varna? Some guidelines are given
in the Manusmrti:
‘The entire Veda is the source/root of dharma,
next the tradition and practice of those that know
it, then the customs of good people, and finally
one’s own conscience’.6
The important point is that individual actions have
repercussions, encapsulated in the concept of karma, on
both microscopic and macroscopic levels; on earth as
well as in the cosmos. The context for behaviour or
action is eternity, because ultimately it is that which is
real. In Sanskrit sat and satya mean both ‘reality’ and
‘truth’ - not just absolute truth, but truthfulness in
general. So everything done must be done with
reference to eternity. A Hindu, by telling a lie, is in a
sense denying the truth which is in him or her, and
thereby destroying that reality.
The claim that the Eternal Truth is immanent in human
beings is almost universally accepted within the Hindu
fold, the classical expression being tat tvam asi - ‘That
art thou’. The practical application of this is forcefully
illustrated in the Chandogya Upanishad.
‘Again, my dear boy, people bring in a man
handcuffed (to face ordeal) crying out, ‘He has
committed a robbery, he has stolen, heat the axe
for him!’ If he is guilty, he makes himself out to
be what he is not, speaks untruly, clothes (him)
self in untruth. He takes hold of the red-hot axe
and is burnt. Then he is killed. If, however, he is
innocent, he shows himself to be what he is,
speaks the truth, clothes (him) self in truth. He
takes hold of the red-hot axe and is not burnt.
Then he is released. So, just as such a man is not
burnt (because he embodies Truth), so does this
whole universe have this(Truth) as its Self. That
is the Truth :(That is the Real). That is the Self:
that you are.’7
Hindu belief and behaviour are inextricably linked;
indeed, it can be asserted that from the perspective of
sanatan dharma, ‘Hinduism’ is a way of life and not
simply the Hindu way of life. The British context for
Hindus has resulted in some adaptations in an ‘alien
cultural context’.8 Ordinarily, and more so in India, most
Hindus will practice dharma without necessarily
questioning its nature. Experience of living in Britain
has evoked questions, from Hindus and non-Hindus
alike, about its beliefs and practices. Questions relating
to its validity, its truthfulness and its appropriateness are
big and difficult questions - for all religions in a largely
secular setting. This article has attempted to deal only
with some selected aspects, in the hope that further
discussion and dialogue will be enriched.
It may be the case that the choicest reflections are
intuitive, as it were, from the heart. The following
words from Khalil Gibran 9 are offered in that spirit:
‘Say not, ‘I have found truth’, but rather. ‘I have
found a truth’, Say not, ‘I have found the path of
the soul’. Say rather. ‘I have met the soul
walking upon my path’. For the soul walks not
upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed. The
soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless
petals.’
NOTES
1.
Betty Heimann, Facets of Indian Thought, London:
George Allen and Unwin, 1964, pp 21-22.
2.
The nature of ‘union’, or the identification of
Brahman and Atman, is one of the classical strands
running though the Upanishads. In the Bhagavad Gita, the primarily Buddhist concept and terminology
of liberation is adopted, and from a Vaishnavite
perspective, developed into an essentially theistic
framework. Chaper six, particularly, of the Gita
delineates the beginning of the personal encounter of
the integrated and liberated self with God.
3.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, 3.9.1 Quoted here from
R.C. Zaehner, Hindu Scriptures, London : J.M.Dent
and Sons, 1966, p.57.
4.
Diana Eck, Darsan : Seeing the Divine Image in
India, Pennsylvania: Anima Books, 1981, p.20.
5.
Damodar Sharma, Hindu Belief and Practice,
London: Edward Arnold, 1984, p.2.
6.
Manusmrti, 2.6. See also 2.12.
7.
Chandogya Upanishad. 6.16. Quoted here from R.C.
Zaehner, op. cit. p.112.
8.
9.
For an excellent discussion on the issues raised for
Hindus in Britain, see Richard Burghart (Ed),
Hinduism in Great Britain, Cambridge : Tavistock
Publications, 1987.
Khalil Gibran, The Prophet, London : Heinemann,
1926, p.66 (1966 Edition).