FIRST PUBLISHED IN PRAGYATA AS A THREE PART SERIES
PART 1
Dr Frank Morales, a Spanish-American, is a Hindu spiritual teacher and the president of the International Sanatana Dharma Society, based in Omaha, Nebraska. Their official website provides a solid overview of their vision and practices, which are grounded upon Sanatana Dharma and Vedic wisdom. His main point is to challenge the concept of Radical Universalism, which holds that all religions are the same. To obtain the acceptance of Western audiences, Hindu gurus travelling in the West tend to embrace the position that “all religions are the same.”
Dr Morales says that Sanatana Dharma is unique and traditional acharyas have maintained the unique identity. In a 2004 essay titled “Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions are The Same?”, Dr Morales scathingly attacks this idea, arguing that it is not only alien to classical Hinduism but is also the primary cause of the Hindus’ debilitating weakness. This idea appears to be a dangerous alien import into Hinduism, and it is a philosophy that has weakened Hinduism to its very core. Unfortunately, many misinformed spiritual Hindu leaders are to blame for this misconception. In his zeal, Dr Morales manages to be harshly critical of gurus such as Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa and Swami Vivekananda, who have been pretty much universal targets for Indian and foreign detractors throughout history.
In a meticulous rebuttal, Chittaranjan Naik takes on the task of critically scrutinising Dr Morales’ arguments because, beneath the veneer of praise and defence of Sanatana Dharma, there is a lack of knowledge. It undermines the nature of Sanatana Dharma and, in fact, aims to dethrone from Hinduism a universalism that has hitherto served as the framework for its message to humanity. According to Naik, the Hindu community is currently in crisis. While Dr Morales’ message that we must revert to a purer form of Sanatana Dharma is legitimate, his ardent attempt to rid Hinduism of the perceived evil of Radical Universalism goes too far. Naik demonstrates how Dr Morales contradicts Hinduism’s great universal vision and overarching syncretism, which encompasses all differences.
This essay is a three-part summary of Naik’s essay The Sword of Kali. Though this essay specifically arose as a response to Dr Morales’ thesis, it explicates many aspects of Sanatana Dharma in the framework of Advaita Vedanta in a lucid language. It also addresses the many intentional and non-intentional criticisms of Hinduism by intellectuals, both Indian and western, across time. Naik simply puts these criticisms as arising from a faulty understanding of Sanatana Dharma rather than from any deep sadhana.
Radical Universalism and Hindu Universalism
Dr Morales defines Radical Universalism as the repudiation of all religious differences. For him, the statement “all religions are the same” is equivalent with “all religions are exactly the same.” According to Naik, if Radical Universalism means that all religions are the same in terms of their attributes, beliefs, and practises, then it is clearly absent in Hinduism; hence, one is shooting at a non-existent target.
According to Naik, the premise that “all religions are exactly the same” is as meaningless as the expression “he is the son of a barren woman.” The plurality of religions indicated by the sentential-subject ‘all religions’ negated by the predicate ‘are exactly the same’ presents a meaningless word-combination. The predicative part of the sentence ‘are the same’ in ‘all religions are the same’ does not predicate identity, as Dr Morales believes, but rather a sameness that lies within the diversity of attributes found in the various religions. Dr Morales fails to understand the essence of Sanatana Dharma by presenting the actual universalism that exists in Hinduism (Hindu Universalism) as the misguided belief that all religions are exactly the same.
Though one might sometimes overlook a distressing tendency in Neo-Hinduism to reduce Hinduism’s profound universal principles to naive, and often inane, platitudes, Dr Morales does something more than this indiscriminate conflation of Radical Universalism with Hindu Universalism. On the way, he deprives Hinduism of some of its central tenets and disparages great Hindu saints such as Sri Ramakrishna. Thus, it is necessary to reveal the flaws in Dr Morales’ logic and then show that the origins of Hindu Universalism, which require a correct understanding, are found in its own texts.
On ‘Sameness’ and ‘Distinctiveness’
Dr Morales’ argument is examined by Naik in light of the fundamental principles of Nyaya, or Indian logic, which determine whether things are ‘same’ or ‘different.’ Modern logic is accurate only within the confines of mathematics. In A=B, A and B are variables that, in formal logical systems, apply to numerous objects in the world without regard to their type or nature. Modern logic does not acknowledge that the name ‘logic’ derives from the Greek ‘logos,’ which means ‘word,’ and that the intrinsic relationships between word-objects must determine logic’s operations. Analytical philosophy (or modern symbolic logic) sought but failed to do so. Vedic metaphysics and epistemology provide a more pure and pristine form of logic.
According to the Vedas, this world is nama-rupa (name-form). Name is pada or word. Form is artha or object. Therefore nama-rupa, the nature of the world, is pada-artha, or word-objects. The study of padartha is Nyaya shastra or logic. Nyaya is an upanga or subsidiary arm of the Vedas. Nyaya, unlike modern logic, does not accept a pure logic abstracted from the applied things. All rules of logic are the structural schemata of the objects themselves. And because the world is nama-rupa, or word-object, grammar, the relational structure of words, mirrors the relational structure of the objects in the world. There is thus no difference between the structural schema of the world and the structural schema of language because they are not two disparate things, but two aspects of one structure mirroring each other. Wittgenstein was one of the rare Western philosophers who had a glimpse of this truth.
Dr Morales starts with a wrong premise by assuming that the sense of the same as attributed to things denies the difference that persists between them. Differences in attributes do not necessarily make things different. An apple may be red or green, sweet or tasteless, large or small, but they are all apples. It is important to discern in what sense “sameness” exists amidst the variety and differences. “He is that same Devadatta,” asserts the sameness of the person, Devadatta, at different times and different places. Despite everything in the river water changing the next day, one says “it is the same river.”
Sameness and difference of things in Indian logic is in the light of the natures of samanya and vishesha (universal and particular); and dravya and guna (substance and attribute). Sameness is by samanya (universal) where the fundamental truth of a thing is that it is same with itself by virtue of its nature. A red thing is red not because of some other thing, but because of its redness. Thus, when sameness is in two different things, it is not due to any other reason than that the samanya of the attribute is present in both.
However, when we speak of the sameness of a single entity (such as a person or a river at different times), we are referring to the unitary existence of a thing’s multiple attributes- the substance (dravya). What we see as an existent entity is a substance, which has a variety of qualities in a single unitary existence. Now, the identity of a thing (substance) is derived not from the individual traits that characterise it, nor from the combination of these attributes, but from the samanya (universal) that identifies it. That is, an apple does not derive its identity as an apple by the redness, or the roundness, or the sweet taste, that describes it, nor by a combination of these attributes, but by the samanya that identifies it, namely “appleness.” Therefore, when we speak of substantial things, the samanya of the thing comprises a multitude of attributes within it without detriment to its unity.
Now Samanya presents itself to cognition as a particular instance of its manifestation. The manifestation of the universal (samanya) is therefore always a particular (vishesha). A specific is never existentially distinct from the samanya. Thus, there arises the hierarchy of genera and species as particulars of the universal and from which they are never different. All flowers are flowers due to the “flowerness” in them, even though a rose and a lotus are different from each other as particular kinds of flowers. In the act of perception, the natures of grasping “substances” and “universals” are in the stillness of perception. That stillness is the disassociation of the witness from the things he witnesses. Nyaya is a cleansing of the intellect so that it may sink back into its source, the heart, from which it sees the truth. In the philosophy of Nyaya, this is nihsreyasa.
Now, two things may have the same attribute even though they may be essentially different, i.e., an apple and a table may both be red, but they are entirely different. When two things are the same essentially (in substance), then it is the sameness of essence even though there may be differences in the attributes that inhere in them, i.e., two tables are the same essentially even though one may be red and the other white. It is in the latter sense that Hinduism says that all religions are the same.
Hinduism and Christianity are the visheshas (particulars) of the samanya (universal) called religion, and they possess the distinctive characteristics of their respective kinds. This sameness is the essence of religion that abides in them all. What is this essence? Religion is different from the sciences in one fundamental respect: it places the origin of the world in a living principle. Now, religions may differ in the way they name or describe this living principle, or in the relations they posit as abiding between the living principle and nature (the world). And it is in the way that this Living Principle is revealed in Hinduism that gives it its overarching universal vision.
By not distinguishing between the nature of differences and sameness, Dr Morales fallaciously denies not only Radical Universalism, which is not present in Hinduism but also Hindu Universalism, which is certainly present in Hinduism. Indeed, he says that the ultimate goal of each religion is a separate mountain that is completely different from, as well as isolated from, the mountains of other religions, an idea that is not only foreign to Hindus but is also one that does violence to Hindu thought.
The Disbanding of Logical Fallacies
Dr Morales’ case is persuasive and rhetorical, but it contains numerous logical inconsistencies. Naik goes through his arguments one by one.
- The Circular Logic Argument
Morales says, ‘If Hinduism is able to see that all religions are the same, then it becomes superior to other religions by virtue of this very vision (which other religions do not claim to see) and thereby it contradicts the claim that all religions are the same.’ This argument is based on the wrong assumption that the sameness of religions implies a lack of difference between them. Even if we should consider that Hinduism would become ‘superior’ by its vision that all religions are essentially the same, then such superiority would become a distinctive mark (vishesha or particular) not detrimental to the underlying sameness of religions.
- The Different Mountains argument
According to Dr Morales, the realities spoken about by different religions are so many different mountains. He claims that these religions take specific pains to disavow Brahman as being the God of their religions. Morales argues that for the many religions, there are many different philosophical “mountains”, each with their own unique claim to be the supreme goal. In reply, Naik says that the proof of Hindu Universalism is not by the expressions of parochialism that may exist in other religions. Morales’ logic is fallacious because it shifts the question of universalism in Hinduism, to something else- what other religions believe to be their goals.
- The Contradictions Argument
Two things that contradict each other cannot be the same. Morales contends that if the philosophical substance of one religion is correct, the prospect of the others being true is ruled out. If the philosophical content of one type is true, then the philosophical content of the other is manifestly false. Asserting that all religions are the same is as nonsensical as a “round square” or a “married bachelor,” according to Morales.
According to Naik, the first fallacy is using an inapplicable example as the foundation of an argument. ‘A round square’ or ‘a married bachelor’ are unitary phrases, and each must thus have a unitary meaning, which is clearly lacking in the examples given. The locus of the qualification ‘round’ is ‘square’, and the locus of the qualification ‘married’ is ‘bachelor’. Each qualification is contradictory to the corresponding locus. However, it is reasonable for two contrary attributes in two things of the same essential nature, like two differently shaped tables. Thus, despite their intrinsic similarity as faiths, it is not illogical for two religions to have contradictory features because they are located in two different loci.
The second fallacy arises due to the failure to look at Hindu Universalism through the prism of Hinduism. According to Vedanta, the sphere of logos (names and forms) is the operative domain of logical rules, whereas the Absolute is beyond the realm of names and forms. Contradictions apply to names and forms, but the Absolute exists beyond the pairs of opposites; it is the fundamental substratum from which the pairs of opposites emerge and dissolve. The contradictory features of various religions’ philosophical doctrines are apparent forms (many include opposites) of the same Transcendental Absolute.
Morales contends that only one of the beliefs about the Absolute in various faiths may be true based on reason, logic, theological coherence, and common sense. This is due to the fact that with each either/or statement, any one claim automatically entails the negation of a contradictory claim. However, because the Absolute is the Ground of propositions, either/or propositions do not control it, according to Vedanta. Dr Morales commits a category mistake when he says that the Absolute is either this or that. The Absolute appears in Hinduism not just as an anthropomorphic God, but also as the morphologies of all forms of life, including fish, tortoises, and lions. Finally, the non-dual Absolute does not negate the world’s plurality. The paradox dissolves in the vision of the world’s ineffable Oneness with Brahman. Morales commits a category error and thus falls victim to the fallacy of subjecting the Absolute, which is beyond logos, to logical rules that apply only to the category of logos.
The third fallacy in the Contradictions Argument arises due to a lack of perspicuity regarding the meanings of difference and contradiction. The assessments of various religions about the human existential dilemma are not contradictory to one another; rather, they differ in their assignations of causes to the human predicament. Different religions give different causes to ‘human degeneration,’ but Hinduism regards these causes as different stages in the unfolding of causality. Ayurveda, for example, believes that diseases are caused by an imbalance of the three doshas. Yoga delves deeper and discovers them in the obstructions to the flow of prana. Mimamsa goes even deeper and finds them in the workings of past karma. These causes are not contradictory to one another, but one is the manifest symptom of another deeper cause. Hinduism does not negate the original sin (or the fall) as being contradictory to avidya but sees it as a symptom of primordial avidya.
Astonishingly, Dr Morales brings up the Contradictions Argument considering that he finds an underlying unity in the staggering diverse sects and schools of Hinduism with innumerable differences. If Dr Morales’ argument were to be valid, then there would be no such thing left as Hinduism, given that its sects and schools have so many contrary claims regarding not only the nature of Reality but also regarding the means to the highest good.
- The Hermeneutics Argument
Dr Morales uses hermeneutic analysis to demonstrate that the Rig Veda sentence ‘ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti’ is an ontological statement rather than an epistemological or soteriological one. This basic ontological statement reflects on the Absolute’s unitive essence, namely, that God is one. This may be true, but it hardly indicates that Hinduism never really had a universal vision, according to Naik.
As Naik says, a Hindu can either (1) believe that the reality spoken of by other religions is the same reality (Brahman), or (2) believe that the reality spoken of by other religions is a vacuous concept. Now the first option would result in universalism. Therefore, in order to prove that universalism never existed in Hinduism, it would be necessary to show that Hinduism considers the reality spoken about by other religions as vacuous concepts. But Morales does not even attempt to formulate such a proposition. Therefore, his blithe conclusion that universalism never existed in Hinduism is on insufficient logical grounds.
- The Etiquette Argument
‘To disrespectfully insist that all other religions are really just worshipping Brahman without realising it, and to do so in the name of respect and tolerance, is the height of hypocrisy and intolerance,’ Morales argues. A democratic vote or etiquette cannot provide an answer to the question of Hindu Universalism. A Hindu would surely be more disrespectful if he called the Gods of other religions vacuous concepts than if he said that he regards these Gods as facets of the same God to whom he prays!
- The Imposition Argument
This argument is founded on the grand delusion that Radical Universalists’ true objective is to intolerantly impose Brahman on all other non-Hindu religions. As advocated by modern, non-traditional Hindus, radical universalism would strive to deny people of other religions the freedom to assert their own religions as distinctive and different traditions. When it comes to the rights of other religions, Morales would have us believe that Hindus have the authority to impose their beliefs on them. Dr Morales has misinterpreted Hinduism in addition to presenting a fabrication as an argument. A Hindu does not push his beliefs on followers of other religions; rather, he maintains that a Christian would get closer to God by being a good Christian, and a Muslim would move closer to God by being a good Muslim.
PART 2
The Basis of Hindu Universalism
Hinduism derives its universal vision from its own scriptures. It is necessary to first understand the verse that Dr Morales had analyzed: ‘Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti’ (‘Reality is One, sages call it various names’). This profound statement is regarding the relationship between Brahman and names. The Chandogya Upanishad instructs that this universe of diverse names and forms is same as Brahman. The seeming difference is ‘vacarambhanam’, having its origin in speech only.
According to Advaita Vedanta, the effect is pre-existent in the cause, and all names and forms abide eternally in Brahman. There is au fond no creation because that which is already pre-existent cannot be born again. In purely logical terms, the world is aja, unborn, and the doctrine of non-creation is ajatavada. However, it is the magic of words that plays upon the screen of non-duality and holds us to the songs of plurality. There is, in Reality, a mystical nature through which the unborn unfolds which the Advaita doctrine of vivartavada explains. According to the Grammarians, vivarta is the unfolding of Vak (speech) through four stages of evolution. These stages are para, pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari.
Morales subjecting this sentence (‘Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti’) to ‘Exegetical Categorical Analysis’ and then restricting its meaning is mere verbiage, says Naik. Morales says that since this verse is an ontological statement, it fails to support the soteriological claim that all paths lead to the same goal. However, the soteriological path of each school grounds in its own unique ontological vision of Reality. In Advaita Vedanta, for example, release ‘obtains’ from realizing the identity of the Atman with Brahman. This is commensurate with the ontological vision of Advaita in which Brahman is the sole Reality that admits of no difference within It. In Visistadvaita, the release is by the consciousness of the soul, expanding by jnana-bhakti to attain identity with the Lord. This is commensurate with the Visistadvaita vision of ontology in which the world (and the soul) is the inseparable body of Brahman. And yet the Reality of which they all speak is One. The differences are ‘vacarambhanam’, having its origin in speech only.
The insight of every religion is the Numinous Ground underlying the materiality of the world. The Numinous Ground of every religion is a Living Principle. According to Vedanta, this essence is Consciousness (chaitanya) which is undivided (akhanda) and immutable (akshara). How is it possible for a Hindu to say that the Living God of other religions is another mountain when the essence of the Living is Undivided Consciousness? This is the grand Universalism that we find in Hinduism and it finds one of its most beautiful expressions in the Svetasvatara Upanishad: “The whole universe is filled by the Purusha, to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing either smaller or greater; who stands alone, motionless as a tree, established in His own glory.” (III.9)
Dr Morales makes a case that the great Hindu Acharyas never subscribed to the idea of universalism because of the intense ‘polemics’ that these Acharyas engaged in. Dr Morales does not realize that at stake in vada (debates), or Hindu ‘polemics’ which he terms as, is Vedartha, the ultimate Truth of the Vedas. It was not the negation of other conceptions of Reality. Shankaracharya, arguably the greatest and most uncompromising of the Acharyas, mentions that the other aspects of Brahman are also visions of Reality even though they constitute the Lower (apara) Nature of Brahman and fall short of the ultimate Truth of Vedanta. According to Suresvaracharya, the disciple of Shankaracharya, the various doctrines about Reality exist eternally in the Nature of God: All these alternate views (different darshanas) existed, before creation, in the Atman, as the sprout in the seed. The power of Maya comprising ichha (will), jnana (knowledge) and kriya (action) of Ishvara display them. (Manasollosa, II.43)
Universalism has its roots in the Vedas, but it seeps into everyday life through the Smrtis. One example is the Puranas. Here is a unique conception of Avatara, the doctrine that God incarnates on this earth from time to time. Surprisingly, Morales does not understand that this is precisely the conceptualization that gives Hinduism its universal vision. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna declares that, though unborn and imperishable, He takes birth in every age by the power of his own nature whenever there is a decay of dharma and evil needs destruction. In the face of such declarations, it would be hard for a Hindu to accept that the prophets of other religions were all frauds who lured their people to various ungodly mountains.
The Puranas reveal God’s manifestations in both the heavenly and earthly realms. They also bring the presence of Divinity all around us to life by recognizing the places where God manifested in His Leela. The Hindus refer to these places as tirthas. There are thousands of these in Bharata’s pure land (pavithra bhoomi). They are regarded by Hindus as places imbued with the Divine. The earth and a slab of stone, in Vedantic truth, are likewise the shimmer of Light, the dance of Effulgence, in God’s Divine Consciousness. The goal of a Hindu is to behold Brahman in all things finally; how then can we say to a Hindu that the goals of other religions are so many different mountains?
Surprisingly, Morales is unaware of one of Hinduism’s core tenets: soul transmigration. In the framework of this Hindu doctrine, the Hindu notion that all paths lead to the same goal must be considered. As the Bhagavad Gita explains, the goal of moksha is incredibly difficult to achieve (one in thousands who strive). Birth after birth, the individual strives for moksha, picking up from where left off in the previous existence. Hence, no effort goes wasted as Lord Krishna tells Arjuna explicitly. After repeated births, the individual finally is born in a family of wise Yogins from where the final destination becomes easier. According to Hinduism, birth is not an accident. One stations here by the workings of the Great Law of Karma. The path given is what one earns previously.
Hinduism recognises that all paths lead to the same goal, though it does not subscribe to the view that all of them take you right up to the summit. The key element of this universal idea is the directedness of the paths to the goal. There is a path in Hinduism for every aspirant to the truth. For one fit to be on a path, the Supreme One decides what path he or she is to take-the yogas of bhakti (devotion), karma (work), or jnana (contemplation) to attain moksha. There is no inferior or superior path here; only the path that corresponds to where one is stationed. But they all lead to the same goal ultimately.
“Brahman is a very specific and unique conception of the Absolute,” says Morales. Naik says that he is confused between conception and Vedic epiphany. Brahman, as revealed by the Vedas, is not a specific conception. Brahman is purnanubhava beyond all conceptions. Yet, Brahman is that in which no concept has a negation. The knowledge of Brahman is the enlargement of the aperture of our vision to the sweeping compass of its presence that one can never grasp in its entirety. Who else but Him has ever known Him?
Hinduism and the 72 Houris of Islam
But Morales says that the Islamic salvific state of 72 virgins waiting for the pious Muslim; Christians aiming for salvation to physically ascend from the dead to reach heaven and meet Jesus; Jains seeking a kevala where there is an eternal existence of omniscience and omnipotence; Buddhists seeking to dissolve all the transitory elements, producing the illusion of a Self; and so on, are individual concepts irreconcilable with each other. A Christian, Muslim, Jain, or Buddhist, would become upset and confused if they found themselves united with Brahman. Conversely, the Hindu yogi would probably be quite bewildered upon finding 72 virgins waiting for him, says Morales.
This is a self-contradiction. Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss), a state of absolute happiness and non-confusion with the pure light of knowledge. A state where one is confused or upset implies simply that the individual has not reached the state of Brahman. The self-contradiction results from being ambiguous on the meaning of the term “union with Brahman” and a poor understanding of Vedanta. The Upanishads state explicitly that Brahman presents Himself in accordance with one’s own fixed conception of Reality. One that conceives of Brahman as nothing becoming nothing (Tai.Up.VI.1). Regarding different schools, Gaudapada (Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad) says: Anyone to whom a teacher may show a particular object as reality sees that alone. And that thing, too, protects him by becoming identified with him. That absorption leads to his self-identity with the object of devotion (Karika.II.29). This reality is presented as if it were different through these things that are really no different from the Self.He who truly understands this comprehends the meaning of the Vedas without hesitation.(Karika.II.30)
Though Dr Morales, perhaps influenced by the Judeo-Christian abhorrence for the erotic, finds it quite bewildering, a true Hindu does not find the 72 virgins’ salvific state dissonant with his universalism. To a Hindu, erotic stimulation is not something alien; it is as natural to life as breathing is. The essential form of the erotic is beauty, and its primary flavour is sweetness. The union that the genders seek in their mortal bodies is the eternal unity of the masculine and the feminine that they see dimly refracted through the prism of duality. When the desire is sublimated into love for the Divine, it can become a path to salvation. The single-minded devotion to the lover is called Madhura-bhava. It is the central theme of Rasa-Leela, the play of Radha and Krishna.
In Advaita, for example, the sadhaka displays vairagya for everything here and hereafter, up to and including the world of Brahma. But one, with still a trace of desire, follows the path of the Lower Brahman. The higher is the formless aspect, and the lower is the Lord ornamented with the universe. Advaita admits that those devoted to the Lower Brahman attain salvation in stages. Shankaracharya says that the Lower Brahman is Hiranyagarbha, the Purusha identified with all the beings of the world. In the world of Hiranyagarbha, the soul enjoys the pleasures of heaven that accrue to it from the merits it has accumulated in its journeys. When subtle desires in the soul have not been fully eradicated, the soul attains the world of the Lower Brahman and enjoys the fruits of its merits. Hinduism may be uncompromising in its pursuit of truth, but its heart is large enough to accommodate the salvific states of other religions, virgins included.
Ramakrishna and the Irruption of Hindu Universalism
In his attempt to negate Radical Universalism, Dr Morales also belittles the Hindu saint, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836–1886), who was perhaps the greatest embodiment of Hindu Universalism. Morales writes: “Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate and wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and philosophy and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular neo-Hindu Radical Universalists.”
These are careless words. To judge that Sri Ramakrishna was not familiar with the authentic teachings of the great Acharyas betrays an extremely poor understanding of Vedanta, Brahman, and the need for scriptures. It is a repeated teaching of the masters that humans with limited vision cannot understand the individual who has attained Self Realization. The authentic Self also needs no teachings (Ramana Maharishi is another example).
Sri Ramakrishna said: “This world has come out of the Self; where shall ye find its truth if not in the recognition of Self? No one can say that God is only ‘this’ and nothing else. He is formless, and again He has forms. For the bhakta, He assumes forms. But He is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the world as a mere dream… the jnani realizes Brahman in his own consciousness. He cannot describe what Brahman is…Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence, as it were, of the bhakta’a love, the water has frozen at places into blocks of ice. In other words, God now and then assumes various forms for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a Person. But with the rising of the sun of Knowledge, the blocks of ice melt. Then one does not feel anymore that God is a Person, nor does one see God’s forms. In that state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. Who can describe how he feels in that state – in his own Pure Consciousness – about the real nature of Brahman?”
Can anyone with even an inkling of Ramakrishna’s teachings and the true nature of Vedanta really say that Sri Ramakrishna was unfamiliar with the authentic teachings of the Hindu religion? This “illiterate rustic” was a blaze of jnana-shakti that reduced great Hindu scholars like Ishwara Chandra Vidyasagar and Pundit Shashadhar to the likes of kindergarten students. Clearly, Dr Morales has not bothered to read anything about Ramakrishna’s life and teachings before writing his paper.
Ramakrishna’s ideas and practices were influenced by the outlooks of Islam and liberal Christianity, apparently blending, mixing, and matching beliefs as they appealed to him. This is again a statement from ignorance of the saint’s well-documented life. Sri Ramakrishna, after his first vision of the Divine Mother at twenty years of age in 1856, spent the next decade of his life in intense sadhana in the traditions of bhakti, meditation, and tantra (under the tutelage of Bhairavi Brahmani). In 1865, it culminated in the highest goal that a bhakta may reach—the state of Madhura bhava. Shortly after this, under the initiation of Totapuri, an Avadhuta, Sri Ramakrishna attained the vision of the unspeakable Non-Dual Truth in the Advaitic traditions. Sri Ramakrishna remained for a full six months in the ineffable state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in complete neglect of his body and physical well-being.
After this, in 1866, Sri Ramakrishna met a Sufi holy man and became eager to experience for himself how the Lord blessed devotees who worshipped Him through the forms of Islam. The sadhana lasted precisely three days in the gardens of Dakshineswar and not in a mosque. Eight years later, in 1874, Sri Ramakrishna undertook devotion to Christ, which also lasted only for a few days in the temple premises of Dakshineswar. Ramakrishna recognised that Islam and Christianity are forms of the same Spiritual Truth. In Kashmir Shaivism, this recognition is Ishvara Pratyabhijna. To say that Sri Ramakrishna resorted to worshipping in mosques and churches to create a mixing of ideas from different religions and traditions is to distort a few singular events in his sadhana to make them appear as if they were regular features of his life.
Next, Dr Morales tries to forge a spurious nexus between Radical Universalism, Brahmo Samaj, and Sri Ramakrishna when he says, “We encounter one of the first instances of the Radical Universalist infiltration of Hinduism in the syncretistic teachings of Ram Mohan Roy (1772–1833), the founder of the infamous Brahmo Samaj.” Dr Morales is confused when he says that the doctrine of the Brahmos was a form of Radical Universalism. He contradicts himself by stating that the Brahmos rejected Hindu “panentheism” as well as all forms of iconic worship. If the Brahmos truly believed that all religions are the same, they would have had no reason to reject Hindu “panentheism” or “iconic worship.”
Ram Mohan Roy, based on the twin conceptions of formless God and reason, rejected both the Advaita of Shankara (the God of the Brahmos was a formless God that created the world ex-nihilo) as well as the idolatry of Hindu polytheism. Ram Mohan Roy correctly defined himself as a Hindu Unitarian and not as a Universalist. It is sheer delusion when Dr Morales tries to show that Hindu Universalism came from the Brahmo Samaj or that the Brahmos influenced Sri Ramakrishna into accepting a universalism that did not exist in Hinduism.
Ram Mohan Roy died four years before Sri Ramakrishna was born. It was Keshab Chandra Sen, among the Brahmos, who shared the closest and most intimate relationship with Sri Ramakrishna. Even at an early age, Keshab had come under the spell of Christ, and he professed to have experienced the special favour of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and St. Paul. Keshab’s faithfulness to Christ was to remain right up to the end of his life, believing himself to be an incarnation of Judas, the thirteenth disciple of Jesus who had betrayed the Son of God. While Keshab enriched the doctrine of the Brahmos with the genius of his intellect, at its core, it remained eclectic in character, intellectually pieced together from the best features of various religions. By 1866, he could no longer hide the inner propensity of his soul, and when he strove to introduce Christ to the Samaj, a rupture became inevitable. In 1868, he split to found the Brahmo Samaj of India, while the first Brahmo Samaj, under the leadership of Devendra Nath Tagore, became the Adi Samaj. In the aftermath of the schism, Keshab went through a deep moral crisis. And then, in the year 1875, Keshab met Sri Ramakrishna.
Keshab was convinced that Sri Ramakrishna must have actually seen God. Stupefied and puzzled, the high priest of the Brahmo cult felt like a child before this man of realisation and listened to him with utmost reverence. Keshab, intensely moved, developed a deep reverence for Ramakrishna. He began to speak about Sri Ramakrishna in his sermons and quoted him frequently in his writings. Soon, he became the instrument through which the voice of Sri Ramakrishna reached the elite of Bengal. Keshab’s doctrine was until now merely an intellectual synthesis. But his association with Sri Ramakrishna broadened his vision, and his eclecticism began to give way to a more truly universal conception of God. To Keshab, God had been the Father, but from Sri Ramakrishna, he learnt that God is also the Mother; that Brahman and His Maya are One; and that idol worship is similar to singing the glories of God’s attributes. Keshab introduced the singing of kirtans to the accompaniment of Vaishnavite music into the Brahmo Samaj.
In 1879, there was a great revival that was brought out of the New Dispensation. It was a vision of the Vedic God influenced by Sri Ramakrishna, but Keshab covered it with the name of Christ. According to the New Dispensation, God, out of His boundless love for man, incarnates on earth from time to time. Clearly, the vision was Hindu, but in Keshab’s eyes, it bore the name of Christ. The New Dispensation was not merely Christ coming to India, but Christ coming to the entire world. He was convinced that the West had not understood Christ and that the New Dispensation was “an institution of the Holy Spirit that completes the Old and New Testaments.”
The sequence of events belies the charge that Hindu Universalism was the infiltration of a Western idea into Hinduism, or “the Christianization of Hindu theology,” as Dr Morales calls it. The New Dispensation is proof that the current of history actually flowed in the reverse direction-originating in a Hindu source and moved towards the universalisation of Christian theology. Even with the inspirational storm of the New Dispensation, Keshab had become an ardent devotee of Mother Kali. Many other Brahmos also came under the sway of Sri Ramakrishna. The Brahmos began to appreciate that there was much significance behind image worship. From Sri Ramakrishna, they learnt that Brahman and its manifestations are inseparable. Sri Ramakrishna’s universal vision was not, as Dr Morales claims, due to the influence of the Brahmo Samaj or Keshab Sen. If one cares to read his biographies, it speaks for itself. Dr Morales fails to provide a single argument to substantiate his claims; instead, he merely gives blinkered opinions.
Swami Vivekananda
Dr Morales proceeds to opine about Swami Vivekananda, that he, along with the other leaders of the neo-Hindu movement, felt it necessary to both water down authentic Hinduism and adopt such foreign ideas as Radical Universalism, with the hope of gaining the approval of the European masters they found ruling over them. This is a delusional statement. Romain Rolland describes the Swami thus: “He was a born king and nobody ever came near him, either in India or America, without paying homage to his majesty.” If there is one trait of Vivekananda that comes across consistently in all his biographies, it is this: he never stooped to the opinions of anyone. He abhorred hypocrisy and never hesitated to strike down any form of a sham. The Swami said, “Bravery is the highest virtue… Don’t be concerned about the wealthy and powerful…To pay respect to the rich and hang on to them for support is conduct which becomes a public woman. “
Innumerable sages have enriched the soil of Hinduism. Not all of them were alike. Vivekananda was not an acharya; he did not come to this world to establish any particular Darshana. He had a different role to play here. He came to awaken, not to formulate Hindu doctrinal responses to modernity. Though Vivekananda’s message was based on Vedanta, he delivered it with a freedom of form that suited the purpose of rousing the sleeping Hindus. Had it not been for Vivekananda, the mental sloth that possessed the average Hindu at the end of the nineteenth century would probably have sunk him to the lowest level of servility.
A sadhaka on the path of Vedanta needs to have an adhikara. This adhikara is a result of his predispositions and readiness for grace. Vivekananda saw that the majority of the Hindus at the end of the nineteenth century were deeply servile and self-serving. Vivekananda came to awaken the Hindus from the belief that they were born slaves. The Swami says: “Why is it that we, three hundred and thirty million people, have been ruled for the last thousand years by any and every handful of foreigners? Because they had faith in themselves and we had not… not the English…. It is we who are responsible for all our… degradation. “
Vivekananda once said to Nivedita that the heart must become like a cremation ground—its pride, selfishness, and desire all burnt to ashes. In Vivekananda, we see not the dissections of Hindu doctrinal tenets but the will to heroism, and his words, his actions, and his life were the burning fire that stirred the heart of the Hindu to take pride once again in being a Hindu. The hero was the voice of a resurgent Hinduism. At a time when the educated Hindu had begun to be ashamed of their own religion; when the downtrodden Hindu was in abject poverty and had insufficient food to eat; and when the voiceless Hindu watched in dismay as his religion was sacked by the Indologists on one hand and the Hindu reformists on the other, Vivekananda was the hero who restored Hindu religion’s glory.
He epitomised both the pursuit of the highest truth and the selfless service of God to humanity. It is a travesty of truth to accuse Vivekananda of diluting the teachings of Hinduism. Ironically, it is Morales that is watering down the teachings of Hinduism by denying them the great universalism that lies at its heart. Before one can judge saints, one needs to immerse oneself in the living waters of Hinduism. A superficial reading of the texts instead of the intense sadhana required for many years can give a distorted view of what Hinduism is all about or the state of the spiritually realised saints. When assessing both Hindu traditions and their saints, Morales is guilty of this to the core.
PART 3
Universalism and Relativism
Universalism encompasses all things by seeing the sameness in them. Now, what is the same in different things is the universal (samanya). For example, the universal “redness” is that which is common to all red things. In Greek philosophy, a universal is an eternal, unchanging form that participates in the things of the world and gives these things the forms that we recognize. This is the meaning of the term “universal” as it first appears in the pages of Western philosophy. Universals are absolute and are the eternal stamps of things in reality. Universalism is an insight into the eternal and unchanging forms as they appear in the realm of change. Being the eternal stamps of truth, in reality, universals are independent of the whims of the mind. This doctrine goes hand in hand with Plato’s doctrine of recollection, which says that knowledge is the recollection of the truth that already lies within the soul. This is deeply resonant with the doctrine of Pratyabhijna in Kashmir Shaivism. The doctrine of Pratyabhijna has deep bonds with Plato’s doctrine of Ideal Forms, which is at the root of Universalism.
While the term “universal” has its origin in Plato, the genesis of relativism is in Protagoras, who said, “Man is the measure of all things.” The philosophy of Protagoras has reappeared today in the guise of Post-Modernism, proclaiming that there is nothing beyond belief systems. The central theme of relativism is that there is no truth, that it is the man that gives things the illusion of reality. Clearly, universalism and relativism are distinctly different.
By a sheer misunderstanding, Dr Morales presents universalism as if it were a kind of relativism as opposed to absolute truth. He says that to claim that “all religions are the same” is to also claim that “the moral systems of all religions are the same.” In turn, to claim that all ethical systems are correct is ultimately to negate all ethical systems altogether. However, as Naik says, Hinduism claims that the moral and ethical systems of different religions are valid for all domain members of the respective religion.
The Essentials of Universal Dharma – The Ethical Dimension
Modern acculturation would have us believe that moral and ethical systems must everywhere be uniform. It would seem absurd that there could be different and contradictory moral codes that are valid at the same time. For Morales, the inference from Radical Universalism (“all religions are the same”) is that contradictory moral systems are also equally valid. This is an illogical conclusion, and hence the basic premise of radical universalism is wrong. No religion, including Hinduism, can uphold the equivalency of diametrically opposed moral rules.
However, the moral code for a hangman is different from the moral code for a priest. Moral codes vary with time, place, and situation, though ultimately, all these variations reside in the One Eternal Dharma. According to the Vedas, Dharma is Rtam, the meaning that is in Brahman, which in turn, has blossomed into creation. The dharma of a thing is the very nature of a thing. It is the dharma of a husband to be a husband, and of a rose to be a rose. Rtam is the eternal nature of the lower nature held in the higher. If all things in this world exist according to their own natures, then how can there be adharma in this world? Adharma arises only in a conscious locus that is subject to avidya. It is only due to the ahamkara (ego) wrought by avidya (ignorance) that a jiva (individual) may behold the illusion of the Self as an agent of action. The locus of adharma is therefore the jiva that has chaitanya and will. A rose can never be anything but a rose, and may appear different only in the vision of a jiva endowed with consciousness, will, and avidya.
In Advaita Vedanta, Samsara is the journey of the individual soul in the deep sleep of avidya. It is the anadi bija nidra, or the never-ending sleep. In samsara, avidya masks the highest bliss of self and the soul is always trying to attain the inner ecstasy that it has lost, hence arises its first purushartha-kamas, the pursuit of pleasure. It is also the pursuit of beauty and art because the absorption attained by the soul in aesthetics is the merging of subject (purusha) and object (prakriti), which is the essence of the erotic. Next, the contracted limited self in the body, in trying to make up for the loss of the infinitude of Brahman, gets its second purushartha-artha (pursuit of wealth, objects, fame, etc.). Avidya is beginningless and the third purushartha-dharma arises to repay the debts accumulated in its journey to other beings. And when the individual soul becomes tired of the tossing about in this ocean of samsara, it yearns for freedom and thus arises the fourth purushartha-moksha. In accordance with the two-fold directedness of human actions, Sanatana Dharma is divided into two parts: the directedness to kama, artha, and dharma, which comprises the path of works, and the directedness to moksha, which comprises the path of renunciation. It is this two-fold Eternal Dharma that holds the universe in place, including both the stability of the created world and the preservation of the esoteric path.
The Eternal Dharma seen through the lens of time is the Wheel of Dharma (Dharma Chakra). Under its governance, the individual soul (jiva) acquires various bodies as it journeys through time. The soul in samsara merely comes to reside in these bodies as given to it by its own past actions. When a soul casts off one body and is yet to acquire another, it retains the impressions gained from its past births. These impressions are its sukshuma sharira, the subtle body. When a person dies, the soul merely disengages itself from the gross body, eyes, ears, and limbs. However, its sense of sight, hearing, grasping, and locomotion stay intact. These are part of its subtle body, with which it wanders about from birth to birth.
The five sheaths of an embodied being are the annamayakosha (food sheath), the pranamayakosha (vital sheath), the manomayakosha (the mental sheath), the vijnanamayakosha (the intellect sheath), and the anandamayakosha (the sheath of bliss). The latter four sheaths comprise the sukshuma sharira and remain with the soul even when the soul disengages itself from the gross body. Thus, a person dies when prana leaves the body. Prana presents itself as breath in the gross body, but it is in actuality the life-current that animates the gross body through the manifestation of breath.
All of nature is composed of the three gunas: rajas, sattva, and tamas. The gradation of bodies in the world depends on the admixture of the gunas that are in them. The distribution of the gunas in the sukshuma sharira—the impressions from its actions in its previous lives—determines the body that the soul gets from the Lord’s Chakra when it is reborn into this world. Lord Krishna says, ‘The four varnas, I have been created according to the distribution of the gunas and the karmas; though I am the author thereof, know Me as non-agent and immutable. (IV.13)’
The dharma of an individual jiva, or soul, is to follow the dharma of the body given to it by the Wheel of Justice. Right and wrong actions depend on the body that it possesses at the time when it is performing those actions. To know what dharma is, it is necessary to know what swadharma is, because it is a thing’s swadharma that is the reference for right and wrong actions. The intrinsic attributes of a thing—the attributes that are one with it—are its swadharma. It is the swadharma of fire to burn and of water to flow.
The body that a soul identifies itself with, in a given birth has its own intrinsic nature, its swadharma, and it is the dharma of a jiva to act in accordance with the swadharma of the body and the station that it naturally comes to possess in the world. By accident, men and women do not have the same bodies and stations. The Wheel of Dharma has given it to them due to their past-actions and the duties of the bodies and stations they now occupy are the actions required to balance the actions of the past. By following dharma, by being true to the swadharma of the bodies and stations given to them, they would be repaying the debts accruing to them from their past actions. Thus, the injunctions of dharma regarding the duties of stations for men and women are not mere normative principles; they are prescriptions derived from the workings of the Dharma Chakra.
These duties or the actions required to repay these past debts, laid down in the Dharma Shastras are nitya karma, the necessary duties of a man or woman. There is no choice but to perform them because there is no choice in the matter of repayment of debts. In performing them, one becomes free to that extent from one’s past karma. One then lives lightly, for the flavour of a life lived according to dharma is sweet. Being true to the name is to conform to Rtam, the meaning that is in Brahman.
Now, this world is name and form, and to know a thing is to know the name and the form that is true to the name as it exists in Brahman. Men and women follow swadharma by being true to the actions contained in the meanings of the words “man” and “woman” as they exist in Brahman. But men and women are also many other things, such as sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, kings and queens, priests, warriors, servants, maids, lords, ladies, physicians, nurses, drivers, prison-keepers, and so on. They may be Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, or Pagans. It is not in the swadharma of a king to choose to be a thief. But if a king were to choose to slay the enemy in battle, he would be acting in accordance with his swadharma. He would not cease to be a king on account of slaying his enemies in battle.
There are now stations that people are born into and stations that they choose to occupy through their free will. But in using their free will, they would be following dharma only by choosing their occupations in accordance with the swadharma of the bodies and stations that they already possess by virtue of the Wheel of Dharma. Those who understand the nature of samanya and vishesha see that they would remain true to the stations given by birth by choosing only those occupations and duties that are inherent in the swadharma of these stations. It does not, therefore, behove a man or woman to strive to be other than what his or her swadharma is, because that would be a dereliction of his or her dharma. In a single verse in the Gita, Lord Krishna sums up the gist of the Eternal Dharma: It is better to fulfil one’s own duty, though devoid of merit than the duty of another well discharged. It is preferable to die in one’s own duty than in the duty of another. (III.35)
With this background, we can see how Hinduism sees the different moral codes of the different religions as being valid at the same time. For Sanatana Dharma, each religion or tradition is a vishesha (vishesha dharma) revealed by God to select people in this world in accordance with their swadharma, or intrinsic natures. The moral codes for different religions may be at variance, but each is the appropriate prescription for the individual group. Just as it is the dharma of a king to slay his enemies, whereas the dharma of a sannyasi does not permit him to kill even a worm, and both these are in accordance with dharma notwithstanding the contrary natures of their actions, similarly, the moral codes (or governance of actions) of different religions may be different and even contrary to one another, and yet they may all be in accordance with the One Eternal Dharma. This is the basis of the Hindu universal outlook regarding the validity of different moral codes that exist in different religions. The nuanced understanding of Dharma sometimes requires a lifetime of contemplation.
Return to Dharma-Kshetra
Dr Morales concludes by advising Hindus to abandon the scourge of radical universalism, the primary problem with Hinduism. For Hinduism, the teaching that “all religions are the same” is simply suicide. Hindus need teaching about the “uniquely precious, beautifully endearing, and philosophically profound truths of our tradition”. Although I agree that Hindus must go back to the profound truths of their own religion, the solution to the problem is certainly not the abandonment of universalism as Hindus understand it. Considering the equivocation that Dr Morales brings to the term “radical universalism,” abandoning it would amount to abandoning the heart of Hinduism, as well as abandoning the faith we repose in great saints such as Sri Ramakrishna. The end result of such abandonment would be the rise of a new breed of Hindu youth marked with a Judeo-Christian attitude towards other religions as “different” mountains and the need to convert others.
So, what is the current issue with Hindus and Hinduism? Why does the modern Hindu mask the great revelations of his religion under silly and infantile clichés? Why has the Hindu become a shadow of those foreigners without whom he cannot even proclaim the truths of his own religion? The answer is simply that Hindus have forsaken dharma. The malady that plagues Hinduism today is our own debilitating weakness and inadequacy. We do not go out to ape the West or to fall prey to consumerism; it comes pouring into the vacuum within us because we have stripped ourselves of our wholeness.
One of the common remedies prescribed by Hindu intellectuals is to give Vedanta to all and everyone. But they ignore the fact that Vedanta is not for everyone. And everyone does not want Vedanta. Among the four human pursuits – kama, artha, dharma, and moksha – the pursuit of moksha is only for a select few. For others, it is quite natural to follow the call of kama, artha, and dharma. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of kama and artha, but it becomes wrong when they are immoderate and not in accordance with the dictates of dharma. In recent times, there has been a markedly skewed propagation of the Vedantic message to the near exclusion of the Dharma Kshetra, within which Vedanta appears as its supreme revelation. We need to bring about a correction in perspective today so that all and sundry do not neglect what they believe to be mere superstitions. The overarching umbrella of Hinduism is called Hindu Dharma, not Vedanta. Vedanta is for a select few, but Hindu Dharma is for all Hindus. Dharma applies to both aspirants for moksha and those who have attained liberation because dharma governs everything in this world without exception. We need to return to the Dharma Kshetra – to the values and way of living that are the necessary pre-requisite for the welfare of each and every living and non-living being. The Law of Dharma is Eternity moving in Time. He who walks the path of dharma lives in harmony with the ebb and flow of Time’s Song.
There is no need to be apologetic about Hinduism. Hindus and non-Hindus alike have sacked the land of Aryavarta, and together we have foisted upon it a constitution that abrogates the ancient Dharma of the land. The false ideals of equality, democracy, and secularism are imposed on this land of Bharata. We have left the dharma revealed to us by Lord Krishna for the cowards and apologists to bow our heads before the rabble-rousers and reformists. It is time to be Warriors of the Spirit. The Varnashrama of Sanatana Dharma is not something to be ashamed of. It is the eternal truth of nature, the axle on which the Wheel of Dharma revolves. We are heirs to the greatest Truth on earth and to the greatest Way given to humankind. This gift comes with a responsibility that we Hindus must accept.
Concluding Remarks
Whether it is Jeffrey Kripal undertaking a Freudian analysis of Ramakrishna Paramhansa to show his “homoerotic tendencies”; or Sheldon Pollock constructing Sanskrit “ideology” and Ramayana as “oppressive” to Dalits, women, and Muslims; or Wendy Doniger sexualizing Sanskrit texts through a Freudian lens and undermining practically every aspect of Indian culture, it is a deep and continued intellectual violence on us. Dr. Morales appears more sympathetic to the Hindu cause, but he does manage to poorly understand Sanatana Dharma. He may not have the same malicious and obvious malice as a Roberto de Nobili, but his essay poses a potential threat to the dharma and our understanding of our spiritual teachers.
It is one of the persistent sayings of the spiritually realised and the texts that a mortal only indulges in foolishness when he tries to analyse the self-realized person. Amazingly, the teachings and sayings of spiritually realised people like Sri Ramana Maharishi or Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa confirm the highest teachings of Vedanta without studying the Vedas and the Upanishads. Ramana Maharishi says clearly that the karma of many past lives culminated in this life when he attained moksha in a few moments. The fruit of moksha seems to fall suddenly, but the maturing and ripening is spread over hundreds of many past lives. The experiential state reached by the saints is beyond the analysis of intellects trapped in mortal frames. In recent times, Arun Shourie also tried to scientifically explain their brain states by using scientific approaches, an effort at which Ramana Maharishi might have simply smiled at. “Consciousness is a primary entity beyond body, mind, intellect, space, time, and energy and is impossible to yield to scientific explanations and reductionisms,” says Advaita emphatically. Yet, the efforts persist, mangling the philosophies of Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma along the way.
Chittaranjan Naik gives a beautiful explanation of the Self in his two books (Natural Realism and On the Existence of the Self) and also shows how Advaita Vedanta reconciles itself with every other philosophy. It has a complete explanation of the world present in waking, dreaming, and deep sleep stages. It explains karma, rebirth, liberation, and, importantly, contrary to popular understanding, never rejects the material world or its scientific workings. It is, in fact, a complete philosophy that explains everything about this world, the heavens, and the liberated state transcending all. It is indeed the pinnacle of all philosophies. It is only frail human minds indulging in distortions and free interpretations that cause great damage, intentionally or otherwise.
As Dr Balagangadhara explains in his brilliant essay How To Speak For Indian Traditions (in Cultures Differ Differently), the insights of Hindu traditions are “route descriptions” to a destination relativized both to the route and to the individual on that route. Of course, his strong and important thesis is that “Hinduism” is actually a western experience of the huge conglomeration of many traditions, sampradayas, paramparas, rituals, philosophies, and so on, when they came across an alien culture and wanted to understand it. It is not a religion in the definitional sense at all. In a traditional world, there is an inherent understanding that differences are natural to our society. Interactions, mutual give and take, and evolution occur through healthy intellectual debates rather than physical violence.
For Sanatana Dharma, accepting Christianity or Islam into its fold was never a problem because of a fundamental Hindu vision that, apart from being indifferent to the doctrines, accepts that each route is good for the people on that route. In this framework, Christianity and Islam simply became like other traditions, with characteristic indifference to differences and losing their drive to proselytisation in the process. Accepting Jews, Parsis, Christians, and Muslims as manifestations of the same Brahman was never a problem for a Hindu (call it a superior vision, a particular vishesha) of Hindu religion, or a characteristic of its traditional structure). The religionising of traditions, instead of the other way round, a result of secularism and the desperate need to define proper Hindu doctrines, is responsible for the rise of so-called Hindu fundamentalism, unfortunately.
Whether a religion or not, by using a metaphor, Sanatana Dharma is simply the source ocean of all the individual rivers, which in turn flow back into the same source as their destination. Authors and intellectuals both in India and abroad are responsible for the mess today with their poor understanding of Sanatana Dharma. It is an amazing facet of Indic culture that it never bothered to analyse or critique alien religions. However, the western world, in its Abrahamic framework, has never left the world alone, especially India, in its intense physical and intellectual violence.
Dr SN Balagangadhara shows the deep violence of such writings and understandings against Hindus at work and explains much of the anger felt by Hindus in his wonderful book, Reconceptualizing India Studies. This violence is a facet of a continuing colonial narrative in the garb of academic freedom and intellectual rigour. Most Hindus, not knowing what to answer intellectually, remain silent. A few who do respond quickly become “fundamentalists” or remain supremely ignored. Balagangadhra shows that argumentation and dialogue are ineffective in inter-cultural encounters where there is a gross skew in the arguments densely loaded in favour of the West. Scholars like Chittaranjan Naik and Balagangadhara Rao are clearly trying their best to reverse the intellectual violence against Indian culture. They are fighting a lonely battle because most Indians have either become apathetic or are eager to absorb whatever comes from western discourses.
References And Further Readings
- https://www.boloji.com/articles/1301/the-sword-of-kali–1 (The full essay of Chittaranjan Naik)
- https://www.boloji.com/articles/1253/does-hinduism-teach (The original article by Dr Frank Morales)
- Natural Realism and Contact Theory of Perception: Indian Philosophy’s Challenge to Contemporary Paradigms of Knowledge by Chittaranjan Naik
- On the Existence of the Self: And the Dismantling of the Physical Causal Closure Argument by Chittaranjan Naik
- https://pingaligopi.wordpress.com/2022/02/18/debate-of-chittarnjan-naik-on-the-frank-morales-paper/ (An interesting debate which Chittaranjan Naik had with an Indian intellectual. The whole conversation is long; this blog is a truncated version from the point where Naik steps in. Dr Frank Morales did not however respond to the criticisms.)
- Cultures Differ Differently: Selected Essays of S.N. Balagangadhara (Critical Humanities Across Cultures) Edited by Jakob De Roover and Sarika Rao
- Reconceptualizing India Studies by Balagangadhara Rao
LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICE
RANDOM MUSINGS 