[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism
HINDUISM
by Ashok Chowgule
1 This note on Hinduism is written by one who knows
very little of the Hindu scriptures. However, the au-
thor has studied the issue of Hinduism from a socio-po-
litical angle, and feels that the concept of Hindu-
ism can be understood by a lay man. Of course, the
intention of the note is to encourage the reader to make
his own study on Hinduism.
2 The Hindu philosophy can be best explained in the
following manner:
EKAM SAT VIPRAH BAHUDDA VADANTI
Swami Vivekanand translated this to his American audience
as "God is one, sages call him variously". However, SAT
is translated by some to mean the Truth. Essentially,
SAT refers to an ideal concept and not to an animate ob-
ject. Thus, Hinduism says that man has made God in
his own image, and not God has mad man in his image.
Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are never referred to as sons of
God, or even prophets. They never claim that they are
passing on the message of God to the people.
3 This ethos of Hinduism permits each person to design
his/her own method of salvation. Even atheism becomes a
legitimate form of salvation, and comes within the
larger Hindu fold. However, what is important to un-
derstand is that while each one is convinced that the
method one follows is valid for oneself, one accepts
another's method as valid for the other person. This
is the essence of Hindu tolerance, and it is the reason
why there is no concept of conversion in Hinduism.
The Shuddhi programme started by Swami Dayanand was a
reaction to the proselytisation activities of Christian-
ity and Islam.
4 It is this ethos that makes me say that Hinduism
is not merely a way of life, but a philosophy of life.
It enables a person to think for himself, which is
highest degree of intellectualism. A person does not
have to rely on what another tells him/her what is
right and what is wrong - of course, if a person chooses
to do so, it is his method, but there should not be any
compulsion. It is this ethos that has enabled Hinduism
to absorb and assimilate inputs from all over the world.
And it is this ethos that made so many who came here
as invaders to integrate totally with the people of
this country. No one claims descendant from the Shukas
and the Huns who came as invaders around the last cen-
tury BC.
5 When the Jews had to leave their homeland due to
religious persecution, it is only in Hindu kingdoms that
they were treated with respect and they did not have to
face any persecution due to their religion. Similarly,
it was in Hindu kingdoms that the Zoroastrians were per-
mitted to maintain their religion when they left Iran
again due to religious persecution, while in all the
other parts of the world they were forced to adopt the
religion of their now 'homes'. This unique record of
tolerance is the natural fall-out of the ethos of Hin-
duism - Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudda Vadanti.
6 Yet another case is that of Syrian Christians, who
too came here due to religious persecution, much before
the arrival of the Portuguese. Not only were they wel-
comed, but the Hindu society found a niche in the so-
cial structure for them. However, the manner in which
they behaved with the arrival of the Portuguese is a
different story.
7 But tolerance has a limit, and works only when
the other side reciprocates. Otherwise the same toler-
ance is taken as a sign of weakness, and a bully will
always take advantage of the situation. Thus, Hindus
have resisted those who came here to destroy their
religion and their culture. Alexander received his first
set back in a Hindu land. Hindus resisted the Ara-
bian armies for more than 500 years, while Iran and Egypt
surrendered in a very short time. Even after the Arabs
had a toe-hold in this country, the resistance contin-
ued, until the Maratha Confederacy defeated the last Mog-
hul.
8 Hindus also resisted the Christian armies that
came here. While the American civilisations were wiped
out, the Hindu civilisation survived, making it the old-
est surviving civilisation in the world. (Please re-
cognise that the American civilisations were so totally
destroyed, that today we know close to nothing of the
society, the economy, the politics, etc., of the people
who lived there. It is a clear sign that civilisations
can be fragile, and have to be protected at all times.)
9 Given this record not only of tolerance but also of
resistance, the resilience of Hinduism needs to be ad-
mired. People who have made a dispassionate study have
predicted the future role of this philosophy in the
coming decades. Thus, Arnold Toynbee said, "It is
already becoming clear that a chapter which had a west-
ern beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is
not to end in the self-destruction of the human race.
At this supremely dangerous moment in human history,
the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way -
Emperor Asoka's and Mahatma Gandhi's principle of non-
violence and Sri Ramkrishna's testimony of religions."
10 This is corroborated by Prof Klaus Klostermaier, of
the Uni-versity of Manitoba, Canada, when he wrote, "Hin-
duism will spread not so much through the gurus and swa-
mis, who attract certain number of people looking for
a new commitment and a quasi-monastic life-style, but
it will spread mainly through the work of intellectuals
and writers, who have found certain Hindu ideas con-
vincing and who identify them with their personal be-
liefs. A fair number of leading physicists and biolo-
gists have found parallels between modern science and
Hindu ideas. An increasing number of creative scien-
tists will come from a Hindu background and will con-
sciously and unconsciously blend their scientific and
their religious ideas. All of us may be already much
more Hindu than we think."
11 The above has been an attempt to answer a first
question, viz. "The word Hindu seems to
have a very vague definition. How does one define a
Hindu? And what criteria is there to be a good Hindu?"
His other questions can be answered briefly.
12 The second question is: "Since there is no central
scripture in Hinduism (for example Islam has the Koran)
how does one determine the basic philosophy of Hinduism?
And what if two scriptures say different things, how
does not determine which scripture takes precedence?"
The fact that Hinduism has no central scripture gives
it the strength to evolve and to conform to the modern
conditions. At the World Parliament of Religions, Swami
Vivekanand said, "Three religions now stand in the
world which have come down to us from time prehistoric -
Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. They all received
tremendous shocks, and all of them prove by their sur-
vival their internal strength. But while Judaism
failed to absorb Christianity and was driven out of its
place of birth by its all-conquering daughter, and a
handful of Parsees is all that remains to tell the tale
of their grand religion, sect after sect arose in India
and seemed to shake the religion of the Vedas to its
very foundations, but like the waters of the sea-shore
in a tremendous earthquake it receded only for a while,
only to return in an all-absorbing flood, a thousand
times more vigorous, and when the tumult of the rush
was over, these sects were all sucked in, absorbed and
assimilated into the immense body of the mother faith."
13 As to the second part of the question, let us see
what Mahatma Gandhi had to say on the subject. "My be-
lief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to
accept every word and every verse as divinely
inspired....I decline to be bound by any interpretation,
however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason
or moral sense." Thus Hinduism is always evolving, and
does not need any organised effort to keep it evolving.
A Hindu seer when he gives a discourse is really ex-
pounding his own philosophy or his own interpretation of
a scripture. At the same time, he never claims that he
alone is right and the other wrong.
14 The third question is, "I have heard both polythe-
istic and monotheistic interpretations of the Hindu
religion. I would like to hear arguments for both."
This issue never occurred to our great seers and sages,
to whom "Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudda Vadanti" was the
guiding principle. The whole debate started with the
advent of Semitic religions, with one god and one book,
came into being. They tried to put forward that the
concept of many gods (defined as polytheistic) as con-
fusing, and hence inferior to the one god concept (de-
fined as monotheistic). The whole debate about Hindu-
ism also being monotheistic started in the early 1800s
with the Brahmo Samaj trying to counteract the missionary
activity in Bengal. They tried to say that "Ekam Sat"
makes Hinduism also monotheistic. To my mind, the to-
tality of the ethos makes Hinduism polytheistic, and I
consider this to be a higher form of spiritualism than
having a single path toward salvation. But, it matters
not whether a religion is monotheistic or polytheistic.
What is important is the way it is used, and whether the
religion preaches its followers to respect other religion
or not.
15 The fourth question is, "What is the general Hindu
position on meat eating?" Here again, it is for the in-
dividual to decide what is good for oneself. The Kash-
miri Pandits, who are Brahmins, eat meat. The Saras-
wat Brahmins, who live mainly on the west coast, eat
fish. However, there is a general opinion amongst
the Hindus about not eating beef. The reason for this is
that the cow and its progenies are an important part of
our economy, since we get milk from them, manure for fer-
tiliser, provides transport, etc. There are strong ba-
sis to establish that maintaining a cow is an economi-
cally sound activity.
16 The fifth question is, "Is the concept of God in
various Hindu philosophies that of a personal God or a
distant God?" As said earlier, the Hindu philosophers
have made God in the image of man, and not the other
way round. This comes out of the belief (which is now
an accepted scientific basis) of man having evolved
from a lower life form, and not having been created by
God. To this extent it makes God as a personal God. At
the same time, God is used as a means to achieve some-
thing sublime - and to this extent God becomes a distant
God. Take your pick.
17 The last question is "How does the caste system
fit into Hindu philosophy? And what is the message
behind Dronacharaya asking for Eklavya's finger?"
Caste system was an organisation of society to give it
order as well as ensuring that each member knows not
only his/her rights, but, more importantly, his/her
duties. Given the conditions at the time, each person
has a certain role to play. Thus, a Brahmin, whose job
was to teach and ensure that the spiritual life is not
destroyed, was not expected to acquire wealth. In fact,
the Hindu civilisation is the only one in which an im-
pecunious person is at the top of the social hierarchy
and the military hero and millionaire merchants are
subordinates to him.
18 Abbe Dubois, a French Catholic missionary, came to
India in the early 1800s. This is what he has to say
about the caste system: "I have heard some persons, sen-
sible in other respects, but imbued with all the preju-
dices that they have brought with them from Europe, pro-
nounce what appears to me an altogether erroneous judge-
ment in the matter of caste divisions among the Hindus.
In their opinion, caste is not only useless to the body
politic, it is also ridiculous, and even calculated to
bring trouble and disorder on the people. For my part,
having lived many years on friendly terms with the
Hindus, I have been able to study their national life
and character closely, and I have arrived at a quite
opposite decision on this subject of caste. I be-
lieve caste division to be in many respects the chef-
d'oeuver, the happiest effort of Hindu legislation. I
am persuaded that it is simply and solely due to the
distribution of the people into castes that India did
not lapse into a state of barbarism, and that she pre-
served and perfected the arts and sciences of civilisa-
tion whilst most other nations of the earth remained in a
state of barbarism. I do not consider caste to be free
from many great drawbacks; but I believe that the re-
sulting advantages, in the case of a nation constituted
like the Hindus, more than outweigh the resulting
evils." (Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, Abbe
Dubois, Rupa & Co., pp 30-31.)
19 It is quite clear that the caste system had advan-
tages, and what the Abbe has to say reinforces the con-
tention of may supporters of the Hindu resurgence that
the caste system was not on the basis of one's birth,
but on one's capability. What is needed is to find out
when and why the caste system became ossified. At the
same time, in today's environment the caste system has
become irrelevant, and the need to keep it in the same
strict system as earlier is no longer required. The ones
who are in the forefront of fighting the system are
those who hold Hinduism dear. For example the work
done by Veer Savarkar, through his Patit Pavan move-
ment, in Ratnagiri has not been adequately recognised.
20 Now to deal with the issue of Dronacharya and
Eklavya. First, Eklavya held Dronacharya in very high
esteem. So much so that when Dronacharya refused to
teach Eklavya, the latter made a clay statue of the for-
mer. This was sufficient for Eklavya to receive the
inspiration that was needed to acquire the skills.
Second, the episode indicates the strong guru-shisha
(teacher-student) bond that existed then. When Dronacha-
rya asked for his dhiksha, Eklavya gave it without
hesitation, knowing fully well that he will not be able
to use the skills that he acquired with such great ef-
forts. The whole incident does put Dronacharya in bad
light - but what is forgotten is that Eklavya comes out
of it magnificently. It is this lesson that is obscured
when we con-centrate on Dronacharya and not Eklavya.
21 Much is written about Hinduism - the philosophy,
the culture, the religion. Much more will be written
in the future. Some will find fault with it, without
having anything positive to offer. But let us once again
recall what Prof Kalus Klostermaier said: "All of us may
be already much more Hindu than we think." It would be
worthwhile to see within oneself and see how much of a
Hindu one is.
