[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
It is yogic, not demonic spirituality
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: It is yogic, not demonic spirituality
-
From: ashok <ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in>
-
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 20:50:32 PDT
-
Priority: Normal
-
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:03:55 -0700 (MST)
-
Resent-From: Ajay Shah <ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu>
-
Resent-Message-Id: <Pine.ULT.3.90.960625120354.21551D@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu>
-
Resent-To: ghen@netcom.com
Title : It is Yogic Not Demonic Spirituality
Author : Ram Swarup
Publication : Hindustan Times
Date: October 9, 1995.
ON March 23 this year, Pat Robertson led a television
programme in which he attacked Hinduism. He called it
"demonic" and said that Hindus should be kept out of the
United States. He said that they worship "idols" and
"hundreds of millions of deities," which "has put a
nation in bondage to spiritual forces that have deceived
many for thousands of years." He spoke against the
doctrines of karma and incarnation. Then not forgetting
the practical side, he appealed for funds: "Help us carry
the light to a nation in darkness," he said.
Such sentiments are not new to American evangelists or to
the world. But their importance in this particular case
lies in the fact that they were made by Rev. Pat
Robertson, a national figure of America. He stood for
Presidential election in 1988; and he heads a 1.4 million
member Christian Coalition which has great influence in
the new Republican-controlled Congress.
Pat Robertson is also very powerful in the media. He is
the head of a Christian broadcasting network, the world's
largest television ministry beaming its evangelical
programmes to 70 countries. Its 700-Club is notorious for
bashing non-Christian religions. On the said date,
Robertson was speaking under the auspices of this
programme.
To understand him better, it may also be mentioned that
earlier in the year, he had visited Andhra to take part
in a Ceremony of converting Hindus - to set them "free
from a lifetime of fear and demonic oppression" as he
puts it.
Evangelism is an important component of the American
psyche and we should take due notice of it. We owe it to
us as well as to those who hold such opinions about us.
While helping them to outgrow their prejudices we should
also isolate the" elements and prevent them from
spreading their poison. Hinduism should learn to speak
out. I will help better relations and understanding
between the two peoples.
In America itself, these remarks would have gone
unnoticed as usual among the Hindus had not Hinduism
Today, an excellent monthly journal published from Hawaii
by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami (no NRI but a native
white Hindu monk) with the help of his talented group
taken up the issue. It published those remarks adding its
own reasoned rejoinder. It made many Hindus sit up and
some wrote letters of protest. To one such protest
letter, Pat Robertson made a reply which while retaining
its theology intact was more restrained in language.
The reply is in some ways more than a fulmination; it is
a credo, an ideological statement and therefore deserves
a different kind of notice. It also reveals blocks which
are not of Robertson's alone but are widely prevalent in
the Christian world. Therefore to discuss them has its
larger usefulness.
In his reply, Rev. Robertson says that he has no intent
"to offend anyone", that he wants it to be understood
that he believes in "religious freedom"; but that while
he respected the rights of others, he adds, he has also
"a responsibility to speak the truth". Fair enough. And
then continuing he tells us that the truth is "that the
Hindu faith has absolutely nothing to do with God!" Then
quoting the Bible for his authority, he says in lively
Americanism that "there is only one way to hit the mark
and that is to come to Jesus Christ." At the end, he
modestly says: "I don't make the rules - God, makes the
rules."
The reply is interesting; it is brief but, rich in
traditional Christian theology. It reveals in a clear
profile the unchanging face of Christianity, a
Christianity which still lives in medieval times and
refuses to change. It gives in a few sentences the
important elements of Christian theology: a single and
exclusive God, an equally single and exclusive channel of
reaching him, and a conception of truth which is ready-
made, which requires to self-preparation, and which can
be had by simply looking it up in a particular book.
First about Hindus having no God, though they have often
been accused of having too much of him and too many like
him. Let us however readily admit that Hindus do not have
a god of the Biblical tradition, the god of Robertson's
familiarity. Their god is not Jehovah, an exclusive god,
a jealous god, a god who denies other gods. In the
Vedas, the oldest scripture of the Hindus, gods are often
invited to offered "conjoint" praise and it does not
offend any one of them. They even believe that praise
offered to one is meant for others too and actually
received by them together. Vedic gods live in
friendliness; they do not deny each other.
This approach is not peculiar to Hindus. It was shared by
the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and
most other advanced cultures and peoples. Like the
Hindus they could easily see their gods in the gods of
others. Greek and Roman gods were habitually regarded as
indenting and Caesar and Tacitus routinely identified
the deities of Gaul and Germany with those of their own.
The
Greeks had no difficulty in recognising their gods in the
gods of the Hindus. It is the Semitic tradition which
sees their devils in the gods of others.
This negative view derives from another basic biblical
concept - that their god is one and the only true god.
True, this view implies that there are other gods too,
but it is freely and repeatedly stated that they are
"false" and they are "abominations" and they are to be
dethroned.
They are often the gods of their neighbours.
Hindus have no god of this description. True they too
often describe their god as one (ekam), but they also
call him many (aneka). Moreover he belongs to an
entirely different thought-system, a different spiritual
view, a different universe of discourse.
Strictly speaking, Hindus do not believe in one God,
they believe in one reality, ekam sat. They do not say
there is only one God; they say God alone is. The unity
of Hindu God is spiritual, not numerical; He pervades
all; He is one in all and the same in all; He is also
beyond all. Semitic religions have no such concept.
Now we turn from an exclusive god to an exclusive
saviour. The two don't stand apart; they go together. In
this too, Rev. Robertson is saying nothing new but
repeating the old Christian doctrine of No Salvation
outside of Church, now modified in this ecumenical age
to No Salvation without Christ. In his support, he
quotes the Bible as his authority. This is a curious way
of arguing. You assume what you have to prove, put it in
your own book and then cite it as your authority or
proof. It would be con scared dull-witted in a
sophomore, but in a Christian preacher it makes a bright
and clinching argument.
Revelatory religions work through mediators and
intermediaries. In these ideologies, first there is a god
of strong preferences and hatred; he chooses a people but
even to them he does not reveal himself directly; on the
other hand, he makes his will known to them through a
favoured intermediary; who in turn has his apostles to
broadcast his message; and the next link in the chain are
evangelists - read televangelists in the modern
conditions - or as in Islamic tradition jihadis or
crusaders. It is how revelatory ideologies function. The
message is received by one but preahed and relayed by,
others who had no share in the revelation. Their merit is
greater if they do it with strong hands and in full faith
and are troubled by no intellectual scruples or
conscience.
In this too the Hindu tradition differs completely. In
this tradition, God resides in man's heart, and he is
accessible to all who seek him in sincerity, knowledge,
truth and faith. In this tradition God is man's own
innermost truth and the seeker finds him in the cave of
his heart, to put it in the Upanishadic language. In this
tradition, God reveals himself directly to the' seeker
and needs no specially authorised saviour, no go-
betweens. Also, since Hindu spirituality recongnises God
in man, it also recognises great goodness in him. On the
other hand, ideologies which deny man's secret godliness
also deny his essential goodness. They find man basically
sinful and unfortunately also treat him so.
Finally, to Rev. Robertson's idea of truth and his
responsibility to speak it. In Hindu conception, one's
truth cannot be greater than one's seeking . In this
conception, truth does not lie in a some quotable
passages of a book. It has to be known through a culture
of the spirit, through great seeking, tapas, purity, and
self-inquiry. Let Rev. Robertson himself find out howfar
he is ready for this larger truth.
Hindu spirituality is yogic; it is found everywhere
thought not always equally developed. It is found among
the wise men of Egypt, Greece, Mexico, China, Today, it
is found in its most preserved form in Hinduism. Hinduism
preserves the ancient wisdom of many nations and
cultures, their Gods and their insights which they lost
under the onslaught of monolatrous creeds. Spiritual
humanity needs renascent Hinduism for its self revival.
