Worldview: Hinduism

by A Concerned Citizen

back to the Worldview Menu

Retired on 31 December 2007

Introduction

My Perspective
Ram Swarup on Hinduism

My Perspective (February 2006): I was led into Buddhism through my philosophical interests, and from Buddhism I expanded into Hinduism, specifically a branch called Vedanta. I tend to merge Buddhism and Vedanta in my mind, and indeed their ideas often overlap. Both traditions stress inner spiritual realization, obtained through insight and meditation, rather than rigid dogma as in most other religions. This wise devaluation of dogma in favor of personal experience has made them famously tolerant; neither tradition has experienced religious conflict that can be compared with the blood-soaked histories of Christianity and Islam. The Indo-Asian approach to spirituality is to raise one's level of consciousness through specific practices rather than to believe blindly in some set of doctrines decreed by a supposed 'prophet'. With some license, this attitude may even be called 'scientific'.

Before going into detail, I would like to dispel some unfortunate prejudices that surround these religions in the West. Hinduism, especially, tends to be grossly misunderstood. I have noticed that even well-meaning friends will make comments such as, 'Hindus worship elephants and monkeys, don't they?' Even when their intention is benign, the implication is that such a religion could not possibly appeal to intelligent and educated people. Buddhism, for its part, may seem passive and ineffectual, and I can recall many pejorative remarks about 'navel-gazing'. The fact that many of the hippies from the sixties mixed drugs and Eastern religions in a juvenile way doesn't help either.

First, it must be clearly understood that the real purpose of so-called 'religion' is to achieve a state of consciousness and not to adhere to a belief system. This state of consciousness might be more elegantly called 'enlightenment' or 'inspiration', and the dreary baggage-laden term 'religion' should be replaced by 'spirituality'. It may be that some belief system helps one to achieve the desired inspiration, but once the goal is achieved the belief system should be abandoned as having served its purpose. One may still speculate about reality for the stimulation of philosophical inquiry, but this should be distinguished from the desired state of consciousness. In brief, it doesn't matter what one believes in but whether one's consciousness is pure, illuminated and happy. (Kind behavior will usually follow as a corollary.)

Now something like this inspiration seems to have come more easily to ancient than to modern people. The following ideas may appear speculative, but they are at least plausible. Ancient people tended to see God or Gods everywhere, and one can interpret this as an inspired consciousness illuminating the world, with the illuminated objects then being interpreted anthropomorphically. One can suppose that this happens spontaneously to a pristine and childlike mind uncluttered by the cobweb of thoughts and prejudices acquired by modern civilization and education. I don't want to romanticize this 'primitive' mind, but one might note that already in the time of Socrates and Plato, sustained inquiry in Greece was leading to skepticism regarding the Gods. Plato's 'mysticism', with its emphasis on the One and the Good, might be seen as an attempt to regain a pure, simple, holistic mode of consciousness, with associated inspiration and illumination, not unlike poetry, as opposed to the fragmented world of the empirical and discriminating consciousness that we now take for granted. This 'empirical' consciousness arises from a hyperactive mind that first analyzes experience into subject and object and then analyzes the object or 'world' into atomistic fragments. Hence, Plato's stress on the 'unity' of illuminated thought as opposed to the shadowy, fragmentary impermanence of empirical thought as experienced by the prisoners in the cave. It is noteworthy that most mystical traditions stress the 'nonduality' of the illuminated or 'realized' state of consciousness to which they aspire. The distinction between subject and object seems to evaporate, and 'All is One'. Holistic vision, mystical illumination, and a sensitivity to the omnipresence of the divine are different aspects of the same state of consciousness, which we have lost due to the suffocating effects of ego and mind.

Note that mind and ego are closely related, as the function of the mind is to discriminate, and the ego is the powerful feeling, induced by the mind, of a fundamental distinction between subject and object, or self and world.

So much for my metaphysics, which is not meant to convince you, but simply to give you an idea how I interpret such matters. In particular, you may accuse me of conflating a number of ideas from the philosophical and mystical literature, and I would wholeheartedly agree.

Returning to Hinduism, we can explain the many Gods and sacred objects of popular worship as a remnant of this early vision. Many Hindus are still relatively uneducated, and Hinduism never had a dogmatic mold imposed on religious thinking, as happened with Christianity and Islam. At the same time, one should realize that Hinduism has an educated tradition whose philosophical subtlety equals if not surpasses that of the Greeks (or of the great idealistic philosophers of 19th century Europe). It is unfortunate that most Westerners notice only the sensational aspects of popular Hinduism and remain unaware of the deep philosophical traditions.

In particular, the Advaita or Nonduality tradition within Vedanta lays great emphasis on the fundamental unity of reality, which they call Brahman or Consciousness. One could identify Brahman with 'God', but this is problematic as Brahman is not a 'creator' distinct from his creation but rather is creation. Brahman is simply the sole Reality. Hence, once realization of this fundamental truth is achieved, the distinction between subject and object vanishes, and from this standpoint one can say that our essence is divine. Of course, from this lofty standpoint, the ego has vanished, and there is no question of megalomania. Such a 'nondual' experience is classic mysticism, accompanied by bliss, illumination and a feeling of infinitude. Rather than seeing 'gods' everywhere, the Advaitin would simply say that All is Divine, whereas other Vedantins would maintain some slight distinction between self and God. Hence, the Vedantin has no trouble incorporating the many Gods and Goddesses of popular Hinduism into his vision; they are merely manifestations of the omnipresent Divine as interpreted by the uneducated mind.

SRK, a Hindu correspondent, has the following to say regarding my identification of Brahman with Consciousness: "This is not entirely accurate. Consciousness is not a synonym of Brahman (lit. the great). Rather, the Upanishadic insight is to first examine consciousness, and then identify it with the Great, as expressed in the aphorism (mahavakya) - prajnaanam brahmah - consciousness is brahman. The identification of consciousness with brahman is not immediately obvious to the average person; otherwise the aphorism and the authoritative status attached to it would be unnecessary." Frankly, I don't think SRK's point is incompatible with what I have been saying.

I hope to add much more here on the spiritual aspects of Hinduism. Right now, I am absorbed in politics! Ah, Samsara!

UPDATE (1 Jan 07): A summary of my spiritual beliefs can be found here.

Back to Introduction

Ram Swarup on Hinduism (19 Oct 06): Thanks to SRK, I have just discovered a great online book on Hinduism. The foreword by David Frawley says everything I've been trying to say, but better. Please read this if nothing else.

RAM SWARUP: ON HINDUISM

UPDATE (27 Oct 06): My Hindu correspondent SRK makes an acute observation regarding Frawley's foreword:

Re: The foreword by David Frawley says everything I've been trying to say.
Well, here is Frawley writing Jewish apologetics:
Both conversion-based religions are based on an older Jewish monotheistic tradition that was critical of the diverse Pagan cults around it. They turned this rejection, which for the Jews was meant to preserve their own culture, into an article of faith and a need to eradicate all other beliefs.

When I last read the Bible, Moses and Joshua did not merely 'preserve their own culture' but actually eradicated many of the surrounding ones (and that of their own tribe, btw, killing 3000 for worshipping the golden calf etc.) for 'their Gods were a snare' unto the 'chosen people'. Frawley also neglects to mention that the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton was bitten by the monotheistic bug, and indulged in similar behaviour. In Akhenaton's case, his 'culture' was in no peril of dissolution in his time. Zoroastrianism is another monotheistic dispensation that has exhibited similar propensities in its heyday. I'm afraid Frawley sounds more politically, than factually, correct.

My response was as follows:

Thanks for continuing to read my stuff and keeping me on my toes. I hadn't notice this. You are no doubt right that it is a matter of PC on his part. The Holocaust is a very big deal in the West, as it should be. After all, it was in Europe and the Middle East — the two bastions of monotheism — that Jews were persecuted for centuries. A dark irony there!
I will add your point to my Hinduism page. However, I must emphasize something I have said several times on my website. Of all the three major monotheistic traditions, the Jews have done the best job of unscrambling their brains by appropriately 'reinterpreting' their ancient scriptures.

There is something else to say about the monotheistic concept. It has a certain logical seductiveness. Of course, the divine must ultimately be One. Or so it has seemed to many philosophically-inclined people throughout the ages, including in India. As the ultimate cause or basis for all manifestation, it would be most perplexing otherwise. I discuss this some more below. What matters here is that the idea of the ultimate unity of the divine principle has been perverted by monotheistic religions into the idea that the divine has only one representation (including intellectual as well as imaginary representations). From this, all kind of political evil has flowed.

Back to Introduction

Caste

Introduction (April 2006): Hindu culture is colorful, fascinating and diverse. India is the true melting pot, a patchwork of tribes and ethnic groups. However, due to its notoriety, I must say a word about caste, which seems to spring to every foreigner's mind when India is mentioned, along with cows and curry. The much maligned caste system was not sanctioned in the Vedas, according to this website (but see the update below). It was partly a mechanism to allow a patchwork of social groups to live together harmoniously without losing their identities and traditions. In a way, it was a kind of early 'multiculturalism,' which is ironic considering that the same leftists who worship multiculturalism will condemn caste without drawing any nuances. After all, if caste today is largely a matter of choosing mates and friends, then what right does the state have to interfere? In ancient days it was a normal structuring of society in many parts of the world and was not considered oppressive. It became corrupted during colonial times, but that is over, and India now needs to concentrate on economic growth, not internal dissension. Besides, we have sharp economic class distinctions, and that is not so different from caste, not that two wrongs make a right.

UPDATE (2 Oct 06): My scholarly Hindu correspondent SRK notes that I am not quite correct when I say (or rather quote a Hindu website) that caste was not sanctioned by the Vedas:

Well, the fact of the matter is that the Vedas do sanction a fourfold division of society - just read the Purusha Sukta. We can argue how 'oppressive' or 'egalitarian' that might be, its purpose, utility etc. but the fact of the matter remains: Fourfold caste division is sanctioned in the Vedas, and throughout the Pauranic literature as well.

Well, that may be, but even conservative Hindus often point out that the great Veda Vyasa, who recorded the 'immortal' Vedas into their present form, was born of a lowly fisherwoman. However, SRK reminds me of the distinction between 'pratiloma' and 'anuloma' marriage, such that marrying off a high-born son to a low-born woman is not nearly as damaging to social status as marrying a high-born woman to a low-born son. (Not many Hindus point out this subtlety!)

It would help to read the following excellent essay on caste by the great and reliable Indologist Koenraad Elst. It explodes many myths and preconceptions:

CASTE - VERDICT FROM BELGIUM
by Koenraad Elst
in Hinduism Today, Sep 1994
The caste system is often portrayed as the ultimate horror. Inborn inequality is indeed unacceptable to us moderns, but this does not preclude that the system has also had its merits.
Caste is perceived as an 'exclusion-from', but first of all it is a form of 'belonging-to', a natural structure of solidarity. For this reason, Christian and Muslim missionaries found it very difficult to lure Hindus away from their communities. [. . .] That is why the missionaries started attacking the institution of caste and in particular the brahmin caste. This propaganda has bloomed into a full-fledged anti-brahminism, the Indian equivalent of anti-Semitism.
Every caste had a large measure of autonomy, with its own judiciary, duties and privileges, and often its own temples. Inter-caste affairs were settled at the village council by consensus; even the lowest caste had veto power. This autonomy of intermediate levels of society is the antithesis of the totalitarian society in which the individual stands helpless before the all-powerful state. This decentralized structure of civil society and of the Hindu religious commonwealth has been crucial to the survival of Hinduism under Muslim rule. Whereas Buddhism was swept away as soon as its monasteries were destroyed, Hinduism retreated into its caste structure and weathered the storm.

Belonging to a group can give a powerful and welcome sense of solidarity. Thus the missionaries blundered badly in failing to comprehend its power:

A spectacular example is what the missions call 'the Mistake': the attempt, in 1891, to make tribal converts in Chhotanagpur inter-dine with converts from other tribes. It was a disaster for the mission. Most tribals renounced Christianity because they chose to preserve the taboo on inter-dining. As strongly as the haughtiest brahmin, they refused to mix what God hath separated.

Who are you or I to tell someone that he may not belong to a (non-violent and law-abiding) group of his choice? Elst goes on to show that caste is hardly a uniquely Hindu institution but is found in many pre-modern societies, including Europe with its aristocrats, who would never (or rarely) marry commoners. Furthermore, there is often confusion between jata and varna, the former denoting caste per se, i.e. the endogamous group into which you are born and are expected to marry, and the latter a functional division found in Vedic-influenced societies, which divides labor into the natural categories of intellectual, military, commercial and manual, whose members are called the brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras, respectively. Such a division reflects education, natural abilities and personal temperament, and one can scarcely imagine a well-functioning society without such a division. Elst claims that 'everyone is a shudra by birth', which sounds rather egalitarian. It is important to note that these classes did not necessarily correlate to wealth or social status:

Thus, half of the princely rulers in British India were shudras and a few were brahmins, though it is the kshatriya function par excellence. Many shudras are rich, many brahmins impoverished.

Hinduism stresses the importance of personal virtues, if varna is to be meaningful:

The Mahabharata defines the varna qualities thus: "He in whom you find truthfulness, generosity, absence of hatred, modesty, goodness and self-restraint, is a brahmana. He who fulfills the duties of a knight, studies the scriptures, concentrates on acquisition and distribution of riches, is a kshatriya. He who loves cattle-breeding, agriculture and money, is honest and well-versed in scripture, is a vaishya. He who eats anything, practises any profession, ignores purity rules, and takes no interest in scriptures and rules of life, is a shudra." The higher the varna, the more rules of self-discipline are to be observed. Hence, a jati could collectively improve its status by adopting more demanding rules of conduct, e.g. vegetarianism.

A classic example of earning a higher varna, and hence social status, through personal merit, is the case of the famed 17th century freedom fighter Shivaji, who was born a shudra but rose to kshatriya on the basis of his military exploits.

A last major point is that untouchability is NOT sanctioned in the Vedas. It seems to have arisen as some professions, such as butcher or grave-digger, were considered unclean. Anyhow, it is outlawed under the modern Indian constitution. India is modernizing, and caste is disappearing, especially in the cities. Some well-reported caste conflicts in the countryside are mostly disputes over land. And the shudras are gaining ever more political power. At most, caste remains a private matter of marriage, and the state has no right to interfere in that. So please abandon all your knee-jerk preconceptions about Hindus when you hear the word 'caste'.

K.S. Lal: Factors which checked the Islamization of India (scroll down)

Back to Hinduism Menu

Tolerance

Introduction
More on S.R. Goel

Back to Hinduism Menu

Introduction (20 Oct 06): Hinduism is famous for 'religious tolerance'. Hindus have rarely if ever fought bloody wars over religious doctrine, quite unlike the Christians and Muslims. What is the reason for this? S.R. Goel provides an insightful analysis:

...But the purpose of all these statements [i.e. various Indian philosophies] always remained practical — the human personality was to be explored, purified, uplifted, and made to reach and rest on its highest perch. Many mystic methods were devised, experimented with, and perfected in order to achieve this ultimate aim. But the central theme always revolved round human consciousness and what can be done with it as it rose from one level to another. The metaphysicians engaged themselves in their round of abstract discussions. But the yogin and the bhakta and the mystic pursued their path towards perfection without bothering about mere metaphysics and without anchoring their boat at this scholastic shore or that.
That explains why it is the seer and not the scholar who has all along dominated the scene in Sanatana Dharma. That explains why it is the saint and not the pandit who has always sat at the centre of Hindu society. That explains why it is the mystic and not the man of letters who has ruled the roost in Hindu culture. The most honoured names in Hindu history, above even those of the heroes, are the names of seers, sages, saints, and mystics — Vyasa, Valmiki, Yajnavalkya, the Buddha, Bhagvan Mahavira, Shankara, Ramanuja, Gorakhnath, Kabir, Nanak, Tulsidas, Mira, Ramakrishna, Raman — to mention only the most notable in a galaxy of great names. It is said that there is not a village in India which has not known an authentic saint within a radius of three miles around it. The vaNi and the vacanamrita of these great souls has sustained Hindu masses in their allegiance to Sanatana Dharma even when subjected to the most harrowing hooliganism as during the medieval Muslim rule, or under the Portuguese pirates in Malabar, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala.

In another chapter, Goel says:

...One is, therefore, free not to give any name to the Self which seeks the Truth. One is free not to accept the ontological language of Atman and Paramatman, PuruSa and PuruSottama. One is free to describe the spiritual experience in cryptic aphorisms or sonorous songs, or to say that it is indescribable and fall silent. It is the discovery and not the description which is significant. All sects of Sanatana Dharma share this discovery in common, and have their starting point in it.
It is this spiritual centre of Hindu society which has been the watershed of many ways of worship, each with its own outer forms; many religious sects, each with its own private and public rituals; many shastras, each with its own language and metaphor; and many metaphysical points of view, each with its own ontology, epistemology, axiology, and ethics. They are like the streams of crystal clear water which spring from the same snow-clad Himalayan heights, which become many rivers as they meander through the plains with many villages, towns and ferries on their banks, and which merge in the same Great Ocean to become one wide spread of water once more.....
....
TRUE AND FALSE UNIVERSALISM
...This is the basis of true universalism envisaged by Sanatana Dharma. One is free to take a start according to one's own individual stage of spiritual evolution and preparation (adhara), and also free to follow along the curve of one's own cultural moorings, one's own individual inclination and aptitude (adhikara). The pace of spiritual progress can be slow or fast, evolutional or revolutional, depending upon the drive towards divinity which one feels within oneself. One is free to choose this form of worship or that, this round of ritual or another, this religious sect or a different one, this philosophy or some other speculation.
Here there is no place for that counterfeit universalism which has only one closed concept of God, one dogmatic designation of the deity, one fixed form of faith, one regimented mode of worship, one rigid code of moral conduct, and one strait-jacket of social culture. Here there is no place for hysterical harangues to conform to the One True God's commandments in the only life one has, and no forced pace by fear of an eternal hell or promise of an eternal heaven. On the contrary, here one can start again after every false step, wander away and wait till the inner call comes again, and resume the journey in as many rebirths as are required to arrive at the ultimate goal of final freedom from bondage.
It is this sterling universalism of its spiritual centre which has sustained Hindu society as a spacious platform for the free play of a large number of spiritual traditions, and for the fullest functioning of a still larger number of religious denominations. Hindu society has never known the religious strife which has characterised the closed creeds throughout their history.
There have been prolonged and many a time heated debates among different Hindu religious sects and Hindu schools of philosophy. Some sects and schools have also used sometime a vituperative language about the precepts or practices or both of some other sects and schools. But there has never been breaking of heads, nor killing of heretics, nor a desecration or destruction of rival shrines or shastras, nor a marshalling of military forces in a war against another religious community, such as has blackened the annals of Christianity and Islam.
Hindu history has known many monarchs who subscribed to this or that particular religious prescription in their private lives. But Hindu history has seldom known a prince who patronized his own sect to the exclusion of others, or persecuted sects other than his own, as has been the standard practice of potentates most highly honoured in Christian and Muslim history.
Hindu society has sent out many saints and sages to distant lands down the ages. But Hindu society has never equipped an armed force to impose its own Gods on other people by fire and sword, as has been done by Christian and Muslim societies whenever they got an opportunity.
There is no sociological explanation for the votaries of the Vedas, the Jains, the Buddhists, the Vaishnavas, the Shaivas, the Shaktas, the Alvars, the Nayanars, the Sikhs, and many other Hindu sects never exchanging blows in pursuit of power, or privilege, or prestige for people of their own persuasion. There is no sociological explanation for several members of the same family subscribing to as many religious doctrines and yet living amicably under the same roof.
There is no political explanation for princes engaged in warfare but never quoting a shastra in support of their defensive or aggressive designs. There is no political explanation for no conqueror casting a covetous eye on any religious place, howsoever rich its coffers may have been in gold and silver and precious stones.
There is no economic explanation for rajas and rich men contributing with even-handed munificence towards the building of rival religious shrines or towards maintaining the monasteries of rival religious orders.
There is no economic explanation for every householder extending equal hospitality to monks and mendicants who come to their doors in multifarious attire, and who invoke for their hosts the blessings of different deities.

So, by emphasizing religious experience (i.e. mysticism), rather than prophets and dogma, Hindus have avoided the bloody religious conflicts of the two major Abrahamic religions. Genuine spiritual experience is free to take many forms and expressions, according to the mentality of different spiritual aspirants.

However, it should be mentioned that Hindu tolerance has gone too far in recent times, with many Hindu spiritual and political leaders failing to recognize the aggressive designs of Christian and Muslim organizations on Hindus, in their never-ending lust for converts and world domination. It is not true that all religions are the same; some are quite contaminated with egoistic and doctrinaire blindness, especially at the level of the powers that be, who have a long history of organizing jihads and missionary-backed colonialism (now reduced to missionary-backed virtual colonialism). I discuss this at much greater length on my Indian Politics page.

To be fair, Christian history does have strong secondary currents of gentle piety and spirituality, though generally at the level of ordinary people, which often took an inward and mystical turn similar to Hinduism. Sometimes this popular piety could even be used to exonerate the evil leaders, by serving to whitewash Christianity as a whole. At any rate, when these more gentle and reflective Christians discover Indian religions, they frequently prefer them instead!

UPDATE (21 Oct 06): When I protested to SRK that Christianity has had undercurrents of 'natural mysticism' beneath the aggressive theological rigor, he did not deny it but rather quoted this enlightened passage from Goel:

THE MYSTIC QUEST IS UNIVERSAL
Mysticism is not a monopoly of Hindus who have never claimed to be the Chosen People, or organized themselves into the Church or the Ummah. It is the universal religion of the human race whenever and wherever it has not been forced or harangued into shutting itself against the higher message by pontifical prophets and ridiculous revelations. The record has not survived but the sculptures and hymns of ancient Egypt leave no doubt that this was a land of lofty mysticism to which the Greeks acknowledged a great debt. The mysticism in the ancient cultures of Mesopotamia can be gleaned from the points of odium attached to their religions in the Old Testament. The pre-Islamic Iranians had their full quota of mystics, the same as in the medieval period under Islam before the sufis were made subservient to the Shariat. So also the pagan Arabs. The Jews have had giant mystics. The Greeks had their Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Plotinus. The annals of Rome reveal the same mystic spirit. China scaled the same spiritual heights in Lao-tse and Confucius.
It is only when we come to countries and ages dominated by Christianity and Islam that we find systematic theological tirades against mysticism. The ancient traditions of mysticism derived from Egypt, Iran, India, and Greece had survived for some time in many Christian and Muslim countries. They were particularly prominent in Iran and Iraq which gave us such great sufis as Rabia, al-Hallaj, Junaid, Abu Yazid, Attar, and Rumi. Europe under Christianity also gave us great mystics such as Eckhart, St. Teresa, and St. John of the Cross. But the theologians of Christianity and Islam were vigilant. So were the tyrants propped up by the Church and the Ummah. They could not tolerate for long such erosions of their exclusiveness by what they denounced as an unsanctioned universalism.

SUBJUGATION OF MYSTICISM TO THEOLOGY
The theocratic hand that came down on the Christian mystics and Muslim sufis was quite heavy to start with. The mystic and the sufi spirit was irrepressible like all other sterling expressions of the human spirit. But theology and theocracy were equally uncompromising. After a lot of terror inspired by theologians and theocrats, a compromise was made between the two. The Christian mystics could continue their 'mumblings' provided they swore by the primacy of the Catholic Church, and paid homage to the Pope. The sufis could sing and dance and indulge in other 'frivolities' provided they swore by the Muhammad, conformed to the Sunnah in their outer conduct, and served the sultans in the extension of Islamic imperialism....
...... In the process, Christian mystics and Muslim sufis not only drifted away from their spiritual search, but also prolonged the life of such falsehoods as Christianity and Islam by making the dogmas of these creeds sound deeper than they were intended to do. Their personal tragedy turned, in due course, into a tragedy for universal spirituality which had initially inspired them to deepen and widen the dogmas propounded by the Founding Fathers of the Church and prophet Muhammad. This double tragedy was inevitable because Christian mystics and Muslim sufis failed from the beginning to see that what they were being made to serve was not religion but a politics of power and imperialist aggression.....

........A RESCUE OPERATION NEEDED
The only hope lies in the mystical elements which still survive in Christian as well as Muslim communities in India due to the Hindu converts carrying with them a lot of Hindu culture and also due to the intrinsic urges of universal human nature. These urges have nothing to do with theological Christianity or prophetic Islam. It is not an accident that Aldous Huxley could not find a single mystical passage in Christian theology or the Quran which he could cite in his Perennial Philosophy. He quotes only from Christian and Muslim mystics.
One of the enterprises which a reawakened Hindu society will have to undertake is to rescue Christian mysticism from the clutches of Christian theology, and salvage sufism from the stranglehold of prophetic Islam. This can be the only basis on which Hindu society can come to terms with Christian and Muslim communities in India. One can be sure that there are many Christians for whom the message of Christian mysticism is more important than Christian theology, as there are many Muslims in whom Attar and Rumi touch a deeper chord than is touched by the pronouncements of prophetic Islam and its stultified sufi accomplices.
Hindu society has to make it clear, once and for all, that there can be no compromise with a Christian theology which preaches that Jesus Christ is the only saviour and that it is the mission of Christianity to save all mankind. At the same time, Hindu society has to tell the Muslims, in an unmistakable voice, that it will not permit the permeation of prophetic Islam according to which Muhammad is the last prophet and the Ummah has inherited the lands of the kafirs as a mandate from Allah.

In an interview, Goel said:

In fact, the only thing which softens me towards Catholicism is the figure of the Virgin Mother even though theology has not permitted her to soar up to her highest heights.

Upon sustained reflection, it really does seem to me that the powers that be in Europe and the Middle East have for centuries exploited the theological rigor of monotheism and prophetism for the sake of political aggression. Some may argue that this was merely an abuse of a fundamental revealed truth. I argue that political domination is explicit in Islam and at least implicit in Christianity. The 'jealous God' aspect of these two religions could not possibly be of divine origin and has caused incalculable harm. If the Catholic Church had any shame, it would not dare send missionaries into India, given its past history. Furthermore, a forced spirituality is a false spirituality. How much more beautiful and convincing is the idea that the Divine lies latent in the consciousness of all and is to be sought out in introspective meditation, as filtered through the many-colored prism of a multitude of minds. By the way, Hinduism does proclaim the only kernel of truth in the monotheistic concept: that the Divine is everywhere and everything. This is the true meaning of the 'unity' of God, not the bastardized version found in narrow-minded theologies.

UPDATE (27 Oct 06): SRK had this to say about the penultimate sentence in the previous paragraph:

Re: The only kernel of truth in the monotheistic concept: that the Divine is everywhere and everything.
The (prophetic) monotheistic concept merely states that god is one and not many. However, it does not say that the Divine is everywhere and everything. This is properly called Pantheism, and our prophetic-monotheistic friends are constantly on guard against this because, in practical terms (and the monotheists are practical people in their own droll way) this would amount to a justification of idolatory. God is the efficient, but not the material principle in the prophetic-monotheistic scheme. Creation occurs ex nihilo, and is certainly not a manifestation of 'god'. Well, thank heavens for such small mercies for, in Swami Dayananda Saraswati's words:
kshaNe rushtaH kshaNe tushTaH, rushTatushTaH kshaNe kshaNe; avyavasthitachittasya prasAdo'pi bhayaNkaraH
He is displeased in this moment and pleased in the next. He takes no time in travelling from dissatisfaction to satisfaction. His mind is deranged. Even a favour from such a being is to be feared.

Here was my response:

You got me again, SRK! Very sloppy of me!
But here is why I said it. In the back of my mind, I was thinking of my own childhood experience as a 7-year old student in a Catholic school. I really liked the idea that God, if he (or it) existed, was invisible yet everywhere. (I was skeptical about his existence for a while during adolescence.) In other words, it was 'self-evident' to me, even as a small child, that if he did exist, he must have these qualities. So I guess I was a budding pantheist! Somehow, I felt that the nuns who taught me agreed with me, but I can't quite remember if I ever asked them. Since then, I have expanded my idea of the divine as invisible yet omnipresent to being the substratum of everything, of the nature of pure consciousness, in true advaitic fashion.
Actually, some Christians have spoken this way, of God as invisible yet omnipresent, if not the substratum of everything. It is a bit difficult for me to see how he can be omnipresent without everything more or less merging into him, so that he becomes in effect the substratum of everything. But the real reason I believe that the divine consciousness is the substratum of everything is that nothing (as in 'no thing') can sustain its own existence. The miracle of existence requires a divine support, in some sense, and divinity must be of the nature of uncaused and uncreated infinite consciousness. Nothing can come from nothing (contra creation ex nihilo!). Or so it seems to me. And to Shankara, if I am not mistaken. I discussed this some years ago on my philosophy pages, but haven't thought about it lately, engrossed as I am in tawdry politics. Thanks for returning me to a more elevated and elevating subject.

I know very intelligent and open-minded Westerners, with Ph.D.s in the mathematical sciences, who recoil at the Hindu idea of multiple manifestations of the Divine. The scariness of this concept has been indelibly imbedded in the Western mind, even in those who now claim to be skeptics!

UPDATE (27 Dec 06): SRK makes another interesting observation:

Now, I don't know if you came up with the 'many-colored prism' analogy on your own, or whether it is a paraphrase of texts you have read. At any rate, you will be gratified to know that one of Adi Shankaracharya's great disciples, Hastaamalaka, uses pretty much the same analogy. Hastaamalaka's composition, the 'Hastaamalakiyam' pleased his guru so much that he wrote a commentary on it!
Scroll down to verse 12:
Upaadhau yathaa bhedataa sanmaninaam
Tatha bedhataa buddibhedeshu te'pi etc....Vishno.
O Vishnu (All-pervading Lord)! Just as a crystal looks different due to different limiting adjuncts, you also appear to be different because of being reflected in different intellects.

Aa no bhadraah kratavo yantu vishvatah.

Back to Tolerance

More on S.R. Goel (24 Oct 06): SRK sent me some more material on S.R. Goel, whose works I have just quoted at length. Goel has been called a 'Hindu chauvinist', and some of his writings can seem quite harsh. The following excerpts will further clarify just where he stands regarding Hinduism and other religions.

First of all, he is no 'nationalist' in the sense of being attached to his people or soil per se. He started out as a Communist, but it was his rediscovery of the glorious and enlightened religion of Sanatana Dharma (or Hinduism) which made him love his country and people:

"I have already described how I returned to an abiding faith in Sanatana Dharma under the guidance of Ram Swarup. The next proposition which became increasingly clear to me in discussions with him, was that Hindu society which has been the vehicle of Sanatana Dharma is a great society and deserves all honour and devotion from its sons and daughters. Finally, Bharatavarsa became a holy land for me because it has been and remains the homeland of Hindu society.
"There are Hindus who start the other way round, that is, with Bharatavarsa being a holy land (punyabhumi) simply because it happens to be their fatherland (pitribhumi) as well as the field of their activity (karmabhumi). They honour Hindu society because their forefathers belonged to it, and fought the foreign invaders as Hindus. Small wonder that their notion of nationalism is purely territorial, and their notion of Hindu society no more than tribal. For me, however, the starting point is Sanatana Dharma. Without Sanatana Dharma, Bharatavarsa for me is just another piece of land, and Hindu society just another assembly of human beings. So my commitment is to Sanatana Dharma, Hindu society, and Bharatavarsa in that order."

As we have seen, his view of Islam and Christianity is quite harsh. Here, he does not mince words:

On the other hand, I do not regard Islam and Christianity as religions at all. They are, for me, ideologies of imperialism like Nazism and Communism, legitimizing aggression by one set of people against another in the name of a god, which gangsters masquerading as prophets have invented after their own image. I see no place for them in India, now that India has defeated and dispersed Islamic and Christian regimes. I do not concede to Islam and Christianity the right to maintain their missions in this country, or, for that matter, their seminaries which train missionaries for waging war on the Hindus.
I have no use for a Secularism which treats Hinduism as just another religion, and puts it on par with Islam and Christianity. For me, this concept of Secularism is a gross perversion of the concept which arose in the modem West as a revolt against Christianity and which should mean, in the Indian context, a revolt against Islam as well.
The other concept of Secularism, namely, sarvadharma-sama-bhava was formulated by Mahatma Gandhi in order to cure Islam and Christianity of their aggressive self-righteousness, and stop them from effecting conversions from the Hindu fold. This second concept was abandoned when the Constitution of India conceded to Islam and Christianity the right to convert as a fundamental right. Those who invoke this concept in order to browbeat the Hindus are either ignorant of the Mahatma's intention, or are deliberately distorting his message...

This seems quite extreme to Western ears, so I must comment. We Westerners, and particularly Americans, tend to think of crusades, inquisitions and colonialism as merely incidental to Christianity. We think that Jesus was all about love, and those other historical phenomena are some exceptional cases where Christians got off the tracks and forgot the true message. Further, we think of missionary activity as being merely the exercise of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Many Muslims may feel similarly about Islam, though Muslims tend to be more frank about their aggressive designs, which were so clearly part and parcel of the Prophet himself.

Millions of victims of Christianity and Islam would beg to disagree with all this. The continuing lust for converts on the part of both religions appears as nothing but a fundamentally political form of aggression. In the case of Islam, this is so transparent that I will only discuss Christianity. Why convert in the first place? Why reach out and grab someone and try to inject propaganda into his brain? Is this not rude? Why divide the world between us and them? Christians would say: so they can be saved by Jesus! Is it not fundamentally obnoxious to suppose that only one religion is capable of salvation? Especially one with such an aggressive, intolerant and blood-soaked history? How could any erudite person possibly think that Christian wisdom surpasses that of Hinduism or Buddhism? Notice that Christians rarely try to convert Jews, because the history of anti-Semitism makes it just too explosive a proposition. Well, Hindus are no different. They have also been victims, often paying with their blood, but they make less noise about it than the Jews, which is not an altogether admirable character trait.

Still, the European rationalist and secular humanist in me, who believes in the principles of the Enlightenment and the American Constitution, is loathe to go so far as to forbid Christianity and Islam from practicing peacefully in India or any other country. However, I have also become rather sympathetic to the idea that conversions are a public nuisance when the converting religion initiates the conversion. It is one thing when a thoughtful spiritual aspirant slowly comes to some religion through his own volition; that must never be obstructed. But I would have no problem with an Indian ban on conversions 'through fraud or inducement', as such measures are often phrased, except that there is potential for mischief in the definition of the terms 'fraud' and 'inducement'.

Due to his love of Sanatana Dharma, Goel does in fact hold his soil sacred:

...My third premise is that Bharatavarsa has been and remains the Hindu homeland par excellence. I repudiate the description of Bharatavarsa as the Indian or Indo Pak Subcontinent. I refuse to concede that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have ceased to be integral parts of the Hindu homeland simply because they have passed under the heel of Islamic imperialism. Hindus have never laid claim to any land outside the natural and well-defined borders of their ancient homeland, either by right of conquest or by invoking a promise made in some scripture. I, therefore, see no reason why Hindus should surrender their claim to what they have legitimately inherited from their forefathers but what has been taken away from them by means of armed force. Moreover, unless the Hindus liberate those parts of their homeland from the stranglehold of Islam, they will continue to face the threat of aggression against the part that remains in their possession at present. These so called Islamic countries have been used in the past, and are being used at present as launching pads for the conquest of India that has survived.

Frankly, this seems fair enough to me. It is true that India was never a world-conquering nation, unlike so many empires of European and Islamic origin. The Hindu-Buddhist culture did once spread throughout the South Asian continent, and as far across the oceans as Indonesia. It is purely through military aggression backed by fanatical Islam that so much has been lost. I don't argue for (or against!) a Reconquista, but I would be quite glad if the entire region returned to the Dharmic fold. In fact, if Dharma includes all forms of Buddhism, then I hope that all of Asia returns to this path, or family of paths. But where I am perhaps even a bit more Hindu than Goel is in my fatalistic respect for the powers of Kali Yuga. We cannot resist the vast cycles of time any more than we can swim against the ocean current.

Back to Tolerance

Back to Hinduism Menu

Online Books