Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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).