* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 1 Hinduism versus Monotheism Mohan R. Limaye Professor
History of Shaktism wikipedia , lookup
Anglo-Hindu law wikipedia , lookup
Hindu nationalism wikipedia , lookup
Malabar rebellion wikipedia , lookup
Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha wikipedia , lookup
California textbook controversy over Hindu history wikipedia , lookup
Noakhali riots wikipedia , lookup
Goa Inquisition wikipedia , lookup
Rajan Zed prayer protest wikipedia , lookup
2013 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence wikipedia , lookup
Indra's Net (book) wikipedia , lookup
Women in Hinduism wikipedia , lookup
Hindu views on evolution wikipedia , lookup
Neo-Vedanta wikipedia , lookup
Persecution of Hindus wikipedia , lookup
1950 East Pakistan riots wikipedia , lookup
Invading the Sacred wikipedia , lookup
Hinduism in Bangladesh wikipedia , lookup
History of Hinduism wikipedia , lookup
Hinduism in Indonesia wikipedia , lookup
Hinduism versus Monotheism Mohan R. Limaye Professor Emeritus Boise State University Today there are about 800 to 850 million Hindus in the world, and most of them are concentrated in India. In fact, historically, geographically and culturally, the idea of Hinduism is closely bound with the idea of India. The diaspora -- the Hindus living outside India -- try to preserve the traditions they took with them from India to their new homes. Any changes or “movements” in Hinduism originate in India. Hinduism almost defies definition—so much so that a famous Indian author once quipped that Hindus are those that call themselves Hindus. In addition, beliefs and practices vary from region to region in India and, within the same region, from caste to caste, and from even sub-caste to sub-caste. As a result, a Hindu cannot assert with certainty that all Hindus observe any specific ritual or doctrine without exception. Any Hindu who, therefore, ventures to write about Hinduism has to begin with a warning or caveat that other Hindus are likely to disagree with him/her on several points. Hence, I need to emphasize that the following description is my individual interpretation, my personal take on what Hinduism is all about. Let me first attempt to describe what Hinduism is, and then what it is not. Incidentally, it is very important to talk about what Hinduism is not because that is easier to do and also easier for a non-Hindu to grasp because its complexities will become clearer that way. Since most of my readers are likely to be Americans, that is, followers of monotheistic religions, I think that a comparison of Hinduism with the Abrahamic faiths may enrich non-Hindus’ understanding of Hinduism. WHAT IS HINDUISM? According to Hindus, man is not a “fallen” being or a born sinner. Man or woman did not fall from grace. Therefore, there is no question of any god or god’s son or daughter sacrificing his/her life for man’s original sin. Nirvana, Moksha (Release), or “salvation” is a consequence of one’s personal effort. Even though tradition is more important to Hindus than doctrine (rudhihi shaastraat baliiyasii), there are some commonly shared beliefs among Hindus. Hinduism works on at least two levels: one is the spiritual or “transcendental” level—the teaching of the Upanishads that the individual soul (atman) and the universal soul (param-atman) are identical. Such understanding or “knowledge” leads to release (moksha or nirvana) from the round of existences, termed “samsara” in Sanskrit. On this level, there is no heaven or no hell. On this level, there is neither god, nor need for one. However, it cannot be overemphasized (and as many scholars have noted) that dogma is less important in Hinduism than behavior or social conventions. 1 On the second, more “practical,” level where most Hindus lead their daily lives, they worship many gods and goddesses. One may trace the origin of these Hindu deities in the sacred texts called the Vedas, the Puranas, and the two famous ancient epics of India – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Not monotheism but multiplicity of deities is the reality of Hindu faith. Hindus pray to them and make offerings to them for specific favors, for averting bad luck and disease or achieving sound health and general wellbeing. In this respect, Hindu deities are rather similar to Catholic saints. Hinduism is openly and unashamedly transactional: One good turn deserves another. Hindus are constantly striking bargains, entering into contracts, with their gods: “I will pray to you, worship you, make offerings to you, etc. if you grant me such and such boons.” And, in my opinion, that is the way it should be. In an ancient Indian play by Kalidasa (The Recognition of Shakuntala), an ascetic says to the hero, “Propitiate Indra—the King of the gods—by means of regular offerings. He is then sure to be pleased to bring optimal rains for the benefit of your subjects!” A character in another famous Sanskrit play of almost 2000 years ago (The Little Clay Cart—Mruchhakatikam) expresses a similar sentiment when he says to his friend, “What good is worshiping the gods if they don’t reciprocate, if they don’t show any favors?” Citing examples from literary classics is crucial because of the realism, veracity and credibility they bring to bear on the issue. Unlike religious texts, they do not have a moralistic or didactic axe to grind. These examples demonstrate that Hinduism has been transactional for thousands of years, virtually from its very beginning. This kind of worship also includes the path of strong devotion (bhakti) to the deity of your family, your caste, or your personal preference. In devotional songs and prayers, the Hindu devotee looks upon the deity of his personal preference, not as someone to be feared (as the Deity in the Old Testament), but to be loved as a friend, a counselor, a mother and, at times, even as a lover. Some gods and goddesses are more commonly worshiped all over India, like the elephant-headed Ganesha who wards off disasters and the goddess Durga (especially in Bengal), also known as the demon-killing warrior deity, Kali, in many of her manifold names and manifestations. Most Hindus (and Buddhists) believe in Karma, the idea that people’s present life is influenced, even determined, by their actions in their past lives. Some Christians may find an echo of predestination in the concept of Karma. But the ideas are different in that people are responsible for their Karma, while God determines arbitrarily (?) who is going to be saved and who is not. Hindus, therefore, do not go through crises of faith as some Christians or Jews seem to go through, troubled by thoughts such as “Why do bad things happen to good people? If God is kindly, why does he allow evil to exist and even prosper?” (Apparently, the notion of “free will” does not squelch such doubts among at least some monotheists). Hindus ultimately hold themselves -- that is their Karma (not deities) -- responsible for what happens to them. They, however, believe that though Karma is destiny its undesirable effects can be mitigated through fasts, pilgrimages, or ritualistic vows. One must admit that, over the centuries, Hindu upper castes abused and misappropriated the concept of Karma to justify and perpetuate their discriminatory practices directed 2 toward the lower castes and, particularly, to maintain the exploitation, and close-toslavery status of the former untouchables by arguing that they had none to blame but their own Karma. But when the Dalits (the oppressed) began their “revolt” from the early decades of the twentieth century, they were able to argue that it was (now) the upper castes’ Karma to be revolted against, their payback or reckoning time. Besides the all-pervasive power of Karma, other concepts guiding Hindu beliefs and behaviors include the cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths (reincarnation); the sacredness of the cow; four major castes; four stages of life; and four goals of human beings. Westerners are somewhat familiar with the institution of caste. Most of them, for instance, seem to know that many Hindus marry within their own castes, but not many Westerners know about the Hindu goals of life: right conduct or duty (dharma), acquisition and consumption of wealth (artha), sexual pleasure and procreation (kama), and release from the cycle of birth and death (moksha). Moksha can be attained by following any of the four paths recommended by the sages: the Path of Knowledge, the Path of Karma or Action, the Path of Devotion (to one’s personal deity), and the Path of Renunciation. As mentioned above, Moksha (unlike in the Abrahamic religions) is a result of one’s personal effort, not a consequence of anybody’s grace or favor. The Upanishads also enjoin every Hindu to venerate his or her mother, father, teacher, and guest (in that order of priority). The ideal most Hindus strive for is selfless action, duty without hankering after the fruit of action. This is what the Bhagvad Gita (The Song of the Lord), a didactic and spiritual text many Hindus revere, teaches. How many, however, reach this goal is another matter. The four stages or passages of life include scholar (when celibacy is recommended), householder, retiree, and renouncer or ascetic, the last stage when all desires are extinguished (Not many, however, achieve this last stage). There is a strong strain of asceticism in Hinduism; however, it is balanced by material pursuits in the householder stage of life when the goal is acquisition and consumption of wealth. The crowning goal of an individual Hindu is, of course, Moksha – Release from the cycle of births and deaths. WHAT HINDUISM IS NOT: COMPARING HINDUISM WITH MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS Hindu society is hierarchically structured and divided in numerous castes and sub-castes; a Hindu’s caste is determined by birth. The origin of castes is mythical and, as such, is inseparably linked with the Hindu religion. Monotheistic societies like Jewish, Christian, and Moslem societies are also divided, but mainly by class. In addition to caste, class too is a divisive factor in Hindu society with attendant intercaste and interclass strife and jockeying for power. However, it does not have doctrinally determined “horizontal” schisms such as Hinayana and Mahayana within Buddhism, Catholicism and Protestantism within Christianity, or Sunni and Shia within Islam. As a result, no war has occurred among Hindus because of differences of dogma or religious ideology. It is true that there were strong tensions until the recent past between, say, the devotees of Vishnu and those of Shiva. Similarly, in the remote past, there were struggles between Hindus 3 and Buddhists. But there are no authenticated reports of any bloody wars among Hindus on the scale of the wars between Catholics and Protestants or Sunnis and Shias. Differing interpretations among Hindus themselves of what Hinduism means have been the result of the fact that (unlike Christians, Jews, and Muslims) Hindus do not have one authoritative scripture. They recognize and cite (as expediency dictates or as the mood strikes them) many texts which have gained “scriptural” authority among them over the last several thousand years. The Vedas, the Upanishads, the various Puranas, a number of law books (Dharmashastras), and the Bhagvad Gita (referred to above) are some of them. Add to this the fact (which is the case among the followers of other religions too) that the interpretations of sacred texts vary depending upon who is citing them. Some Hindus maintain that Hinduism is monotheistic, but I think there is some confusion of terms here. What they mean is that some Hindu philosophers (like Shakaracharya in the 9th century) propounded a theory more accurately named “monism” (advaita). Monism, in rather over-simplified terms, means that the only “reality” is one, namely, Brahman, roughly translated as “the universal soul.” On the other hand, monotheism refers to the belief in one God. Monists (advaita-vadins) assert that when one attains the realization that there is “no two,” that there is only Brahman, the question of worshiping any god does not arise. “You are It” (Tat Twum Asi, meaning “your individual soul is identical with the Universal soul”). But this is the esoteric, transcendental part of Hinduism, the Vedanta. Most Hindus do not dwell on this plane. They believe in many gods and goddesses and, consequently, end their prayers or rituals often with salutations to all their gods. From this perspective, Hindus are indisputably polytheists. When I examine the first two commandments of the Old Testament (which form two major articles of faith for the three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I’m proud to be either a polytheist or an atheist, depending on what mood I am in. The first “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” will strike many Hindus (including me) as the dictate of a despot or autocrat since Hindus believe in many gods. I am aware that monotheists may retort, “If you truly believe in one omnipotent God, who will protect and provide for you, why would you need other gods?” However, I think most Hindus would want a choice. Hindu gods and goddesses are like candidates running for elective offices in a democracy. They all have to promote themselves by claiming that they are the best among what the “market” has to offer. Similarly, most Hindus would be very disturbed by a god who subjects a man to an unnatural act just to test his loyalty. I am referring to the story of Abraham in the Old Testament where a disaster, a son’s sacrifice, is averted at the last moment. It is beside the point that God sends one of his angels to stop the human sacrifice that He had demanded in the first place. At least in the region where I was born and brought up in India, there is a myth, a legend, that one of the gods has been waiting (for “twenty eight eons”) for his devotee to finish massaging his aged parents’ feet. So here is a God of the monotheists, an instigator of a cruel and unnatural act because He wants proof of His devotee’s faith, because he is so insecure as all tyrants are, while in the pantheon of 4 Hindu deities, there is one who does not mind waiting because his devotee is busy fulfilling his filial duties. In the same vein, in Hindu eyes, the second commandment “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” is quite unreasonable and counter-productive because Hindus find concentrating on worship much easier when they have an image in front of them. In addition, they will respond, “If God made man (and woman) in His own image, shouldn’t God look like people? Why not then make likenesses of Him (for instance, like men and women with some additional or “superhuman” features)?” Again, I grant that devotees of Abrahamic religions may argue that you cannot capture or “portray” through human means the essence of an all-powerful, all-encompassing, entirely metaphysical entity. It is important to note that Hinduism is not an institutional religion; it has no Pope, no bishops, no clergy, no mullahs, or no rabbis. Those who chant the mantras and assist at worship in Hindu households on religious festivals or ceremonies such as weddings, or those who narrate and sing the stories and myths of gods and goddesses in temples do not necessarily represent any institutions. These “service providers” are paid fees piecemeal for their work, though some wealthy temples and households “retain” Brahmins for this purpose. Among Hindus, there are no weekly scheduled congregational gatherings. There is no Friday prayer at a mosque or no Sunday service at a church. Hindus go to temples when they want to and not as assemblies guided by “leaders.” For Hindus, a daily worship (pooja) in one’s home is the observance that matters rather than attendance at a public place of worship. As an aside, many Hindus claim to be more “spiritual” than the adherents of other religions. They very carefully omit to define what spiritual means. However, among the Hindus I grew up with (the Kokanastha or Chitpawan sub-caste of Maharashtrian or Western Indian Brahmins), I have seen some people more materialistic, acquisitive, and consumption oriented than most Americans I have met in my almost 45 years of stay in this country. Part of the freewheeling milieu and open attitudes toward belief and doctrine among Hindus can be attributed to the fact there is no doctrinal rigidity in Hinduism. Hence, there is no such thing as doctrinal heresy among Hindus. They do not have to declare that there is no God but God. In fact, they can be atheists and still claim to be Hindus. Nor do they have to recite “The Lord’s Prayer”. One does not have to profess exclusive loyalty to any dogma to be a Hindu. That is why Hindus are not “afraid” to attend a church service, enter a mosque, or go to a synagogue. They are not worried that, as a result, they will lose their anchor, their faith will waver, or they will be lured into another religion. In fact, over the centuries very few conversions have occurred voluntarily out of Hinduism. Most conversions have taken place through force or coercion and bribery. From approximately the 13th century to the 18th century, political power was so closely associated with Islam at least in Northern India that when a Hindu king or a petty aristocrat (sardaar) converted to Islam his subjects almost automatically and routinely 5 accepted the new religion. Of course, since India’s independence overt coercion has not been a possibility. HINDU ATTITUDES TODAY TOWARD CONVERSION Though bribery in various forms and religious institutions of learning are the prevailing modes now used by non-Hindu missionaries to spread their faiths in India, educated and financially well-placed Hindus of today are proof against bribery because they do not need money that badly. They are generally not likely to convert to other religions because they do not think that any other religion is superior to Hinduism in philosophy, doctrine, or practice. They do not therefore freak out just because they happen to like some practice or idea in another religion. They will continue as Hindus while admiring that one particular idea. Hinduism is not an evangelizing religion; Hindus do not have proselytizing zeal because they believe that all paths to salvation are legitimate and effective. Prior to the arrival of the monotheists in India (Muslims and Christians), either by means of invasions, through migrations, missionary activities or trade contacts, there was no violence caused by religious strife in India because in earlier eras the outsiders coming in were pagans, who worshiped many gods and goddesses. They were not religious zealots; their deities mingled with Hindu and Buddhist deities. India then was a religious and ethnic melting pot. Monotheistic iconoclasts (attacking Hindu gods and goddesses) and polytheistic idolworshippers, however, do not mix well. Acceptance is not a one-way street. A situation where Hindus tolerate other religions while missionaries from other (monotheistic) religions despise Hinduism and go on converting Hindus cannot last forever. That is why it should not surprise anyone that many modern Hindus resist all forms of covert and overt coercion or bribery that Christian and Muslim missionaries have been employing for ages to convert Hindus, especially the poor, to their religions. Some may arguably maintain that Hindus did not always in the past resist the aggressive and violent encroachments of other religions against them and that a great number of Hindus were lost to the onslaught of other religions. Be that as it may, I for one cannot get over my admiration for the courage of the Hindus of those times. I am astonished by the historical phenomenon that while the expansive Islam totally extinguished the earlier religions from a wide swath of the then known world – from North Africa to West China – South Asians (by and large) tenaciously and bravely held on to Hinduism in India and Buddhism in Sri Lanka. It is not ferocious adherence to any dogma but the attachment for a unique way of life that those Hindus were defending. Because modern Hindus do not take that kind of aggression from other religions quietly any more, we hear about clashes in India between Christian missionaries and Hindu activists. Another reason for Hindu resistance to evangelizing efforts is that these conversion activities have resulted in insurrectional tendencies among the converts who have been demanding secession from India and agitating for new sovereign homelands of 6 their own. No patriot or nationalist in India is going to tolerate secessionist talk. Of course, Hindus (especially the upper caste and the rich) cannot disown or wash their hands of their culpability in neglecting or ignoring the wretched poor among their midst who have no other recourse or relief but to go to the missionaries who are ready to lend a helping hand in exchange for conversion. CONCLUSION In my judgment, Hinduism has had the following social/cultural, political, and economic consequences for today’s India: Positive 1. After independence, India chose a democratic form of government: Democracy in India is a direct result of Hindu belief in polytheism and acceptance of doctrinal diversity. For a non-homogeneous country like India, democracy is the most effective and workable polity. 2. Indians avoid extremes: They reject the run-away, unregulated capitalism on the one hand and the innovation/creativity-stifling communism on the other. This moderation or the middle path is a reflection of Hindu contempt for rigidity of dogma. 3. India did not build empires: When Hindus and Buddhists migrated to Southeast Asia and built kingdoms (in parts of what are today’s Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam) starting around the seventh century, the “mother country” did not keep imperial ties with those political entities. 4. India has welcomed various followers of non-Hindu religions seeking refuge over the centuries. Iranians or Parsees in the remote past to Tibetan Buddhists under the Dalai Lama in the recent past are some instances. However, from only in the last few decades have Christians in the West begun allowing the immigration of non-Christians (maybe, with the lone exception of Jews) in their countries. 5. Because of doctrinal flexibility in Hinduism (almost like “anything goes”), there is no such thing as Hindu religious fundamentalism. Hindu fundamentalism is a political phenomenon: what it means is a protest against coddling of religious minorities. When commentators, particularly Western, label some parties as “Hindu Fundamentalist” I hope these Pundits are aware and capable of understanding that this is about power and about sharing or giving up of political advantage vis-à-vis non-Hindu Indians. It is totally different from the doctrinal purity battles among the adherents of Abrahamic religions. It is unlike, say, Christian 7 fundamentalists or Wahabi Muslims accusing their co-religionists of swerving from the “true” path. 6. What the upper castes in India may (should, by now) have realized is that Karma can be a double-edged sword. What held the former untouchables and the lowest castes down and oppressed for centuries, the Karma theory, is itself in the last 80 years or so leading to their emancipation. Evidence? The recent election of a former untouchable single woman to the CEO (Chief Minister) position of the most populous state of India—Uttar Pradesh. Of course, the exposure to Western ideas of equality and modern forms of democracy during the British Raj greatly facilitated this emancipation. Negative 1. The caste system, which restricts Hindus’ freedom to act and pursue individual goals. 2. A status quo mentality which dampens entrepreneurship and prudent risktaking – However, of late, more and more Hindus are becoming entrepreneurs. 3. The low status and horrific treatment of women holding them back, even though things are gradually changing for the better. 4. A general lack of personal freedom due to rigid social customs and practices restricting original thinking and challenging creative activity. 5. An all-pervasive hold of blind faith and superstition that discourages clear, rational, and scientific thinking. However, when all is said and done, one observation can be made with certainty about Hinduism: Not just tolerance but accommodation or acceptance of the other is its hallmark. In addition, when several Christian denominations are losing their members and finding it difficult to attract new members and when at least fundamentalist Muslims have to keep Islamic adherents in line with threats of savage punishments, Hinduism has remained dynamic precisely because it allows total freedom of belief and doctrine to those who call themselves Hindus. NOTE: This is an opinion piece, not an academic or scholarly paper; therefore, I am acknowledging my debt to the following persons collectively, without quoting them individually. They read various earlier versions and made excellent usable suggestions for the improvement of this document. They are Prof. Emeritus Jerry Alred, Prof. Madhav Deshpande, Prof. Emeritus Charudatta Hajarnavis, Vishwas Kolhatkar, 8 Aniruddha Limaye, Sara Hartje, Sanika Sathe, Prof. Murli Nagasundaram, Prof. Dattatraya Patil, and Prashant and Alaka Valanju. I also wish to thank those other anonymous individuals who, without my being consciously aware of it, may have influenced my thinking about religion. Appendix A Hinduism: Bare Essentials First things First Mohan R. Limaye Two caveats: (A) This analysis of Hinduism is strictly my personal interpretation. (B) I’m giving this talk from the perspective of one who was born and “raised” a Hindu – not a theology expert or a scholar on religion. 1. Hinduism works on at least two levels: esoteric, abstruse or philosophical and everyday or practical. (a) Monism (advaita) –one “god” (in principle) and (b) a multiplicity of deities (in practice) based on “division of labor.” 2. There is no one single authoritative or sacred text among Hindus. They have many books that have the status of sacredness (though one may say the books are on a continuum of “sacredness” or “popularity”). As one consequence, the beliefs and practices of Hindus vary widely from region to region in India. 3. Doctrinal fluidity is a distinguishing mark of Hinduism. A materialistic school of philosophy (jadavaad) has existed among Hindus alongside with a devotional or theistic school. Moreover, you can admire some principles or ideas in, say, Christianity and still remain a Hindu. Nobody will question your “Hinduness.” 4. Hinduism is more a matter of culture, lifestyle, or a way of life than dogma or doctrine. Hindus live comfortably with doctrinal diversity or even vagueness. 5. Belief in a deity or God is not a prerequisite to Moksha or “Release from the round of births and deaths.” Total devotion to a deity of your choice (ishta-devataa) is only one of several ways to attain Moksha (the goal of devout Hindus). 6. Hinduism is a religion of compromise and accommodation. This worked until the arrival of monotheists, as invaders, whose religion did (does) not make room for “acceptance” of non-believers. 7. Hinduism has no lateral/horizontal divisions based on differences of dogma. No Sunni-Shia or Catholic-Protestant type divides. Hindus, however, do have hierarchical stratification – castes. Those divisions lead to discrimination, social as well as economic. 9 8. As a rule, people cannot convert to Hinduism. There is no “Message (“Gospel”) to Spread.” Besides, if nothing else, practical difficulties prevent conversions: What caste can the converted be assigned to? Who will marry the casteless? Appendix B Hinduism in a Nutshell Mohan R. Limaye A Hindu “Model” of Human Values and Social Organization A Glossary of Key Sanskrit Terms 1. Atman and Param-atman (the same as “Brahman”) -- the Individual soul and the Cosmic soul. In essence, they are identical. 2. Karma – (multiple meanings): action; the law of action and its consequences; (You may pay for your actions in this very life, but, in addition, your actions in this life will determine your “status” in the next life). One’s Karma is one’s “destiny or fate.” In a commonly used expression, Nishkam Karma, it means action without attachment, “selfless” action/duty. 3. Moksha--– release from the cycle of reincarnation (escape from a round of births and deaths). Is there any similarity to (Buddhist) Nirvana? 4. Samsara – (at least two meanings): 1. the flow of this life or existence; 2. also “a round of births and deaths” (reincarnation?) 5. Varna – literally means “color.” But the term is often used to refer to Castes. (and sub-castes). Historically, intercaste marriages have been frowned upon. 6. Yoga-- (multiple meanings): literally, “a pathway,” “bringing together,” “attainment,” or “union” (of body and spirit?). American/Western “physical exercise” is only one of those meanings. Some “Values” Clusters A. Four Paths (yogas) to Moksha: 1) Knowledge, 2) Action, 3) Devotion, and 4) Renunciation B. Four Goals: 1) Right conduct and ritual, 2) Acquisition and consumption of wealth, 3) Sex and procreation, and 4) Release (Moksha) C. Four Stages of Life: 1) Student (and celibate), 2) Householder/ family person, 3) Detached retiree, and 4) “Renouncer”: totally separated from worldly affairs D. Four Obligations: 1) Rites and sacraments, 2) Begetting sons, 3) Teaching or recitation (of the scriptures), and 4) Civilized social behaviors E. Four Venerations: 1) Mother, 2) Father, 3) Teacher or guru, and 4) Guest 10 F. Four Castes (with numerous sub-castes): 1) Brahmins (priests and scholars), 2) Kshatriyas (warriors, administrators), 3) Vaishyas (traders, farmers, artisans), and 4) Shudras (menial laborers) 11