Pawan Deshpande - Hindu Univeralism Essays

Notice ------------------------------

I am included below several essays about Hindu Univeralism which is a topic that I have read about very much. I hope you enjoy what I have come up with and will bring you some new perpective. I also want to thank Babu Shastri-ji for bringing me into tthis topic.

~~ Pawan Deshpande ~~

Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism
by Frank Gaetano Morales

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307498

It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the ancient religion of Hinduism has been one of the least understood religious traditions in the history of world religion. The sheer number of stereotypes, misconceptions and outright false notions about what Hinduism teaches, as well as about the precise practices and behavior that it asks of its followers, outnumber those of any other religion currently known. Leaving the more obviously grotesque crypto-colonialist caricatures of cow-worshipping, caste domination and sutee aside, even many of the most fundamental theological and philosophical foundations of Hinduism often remain inexplicable mysteries to the general public and supposed scholars of Hindu Studies. More disturbing, however, is the fact that many wild misconceptions about the beliefs of Hinduism are prevalent even among the bulk of purported followers of Hinduism and, alarmingly, even to many purportedly learned spiritual teachers, gurus and swamis who claim to lead the religion in present times.

Of the many current peculiar concepts mistakenly ascribed to Hindu theology, one of the most widely misunderstood is the idea that Hinduism somehow teaches that all religions are equal… that all religions are the same, with the same purpose, goal, experientially tangible salvific state, and object of ultimate devotion. So often has this notion been thoughtlessly repeated by so many -- from the common Hindu parent to the latest swamiji arriving on American shores yearning for a popular following -- that it has now become artificially transformed into a supposed foundation stone of modern Hindu teachings. Many Hindus are now completely convinced that this is actually what Hinduism teaches. Despite its widespread popular repetition, however, does Hinduism actually teach the idea that all religions are really the same? Even a cursory examination of the long history of Hindu philosophical thought, as well as an objective analysis of the ultimate logical implications of such a proposition, quickly makes it quite apparent that traditional Hinduism has never supported such an idea.

The doctrine of what I call 'Radical Universalism' makes the claim that “all religions are the same.” This dogmatic assertion is of very recent origin, and has become one of the most harmful misconceptions in the Hindu world in the last 150 or so years. It is a doctrine that has directly led to a self-defeating philosophical relativism that has, in turn, weakened the stature and substance of Hinduism to its very core. The doctrine of Radical Universalism has made Hindu philosophy look infantile in the eyes of non-Hindus, has led to a collective state of self-revulsion, confusion and shame in the minds of too many Hindu youth, and has opened the Hindu community to be preyed upon much more easily by the zealous missionaries of other religions. The problem of Radical Universalism is arguably the most important issue facing the global Hindu community today. In the following paragraphs, we will perform an in-depth examination of the intrinsic fallacies contained in this inherently non-Hindu idea, as well as the untold damage that Radical Universalism has wrought in modern Hinduism.

What's a Kid to Do?

Indian Hindu parents are to be given immense credit. The daily challenges that typical Hindu parents face in encouraging their children to maintain their commitment to Hinduism are enormous and very well-known. Hindu parents try their best to observe fidelity to the religion of their ancestors, often having little understanding of the religion themselves other than what was given to them, in turn, by their own parents. All too many Indian Hindu youth, on the other hand, find themselves unattracted to a religion that is little comprehended or respected by most of those around them – Hindu and non-Hindu alike. Today's Hindu youth seek more strenuously convincing reasons for following a religion than merely the argument that it is the family tradition. Today's Hindu youth demand, and deserve, cogent philosophical explanations about what Hinduism actually teaches, and why they should remain Hindu rather than join any of the many other religious alternatives they see around them. Temple priests are often ill equipped to give these bright Hindu youth the answers they so sincerely seek… mom and dad are usually even less knowledgeable than the temple pujaris. What is a Hindu child to do?

A devastating critique of neo-Hinduism
Ananda Das

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/ODiscJan19_05.html

Written from a viewpoint friendly to, but not exactly consonant with, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's advocacy of personalism over impersonalism, Morales uses the word 'Hinduism' to refer to an organized, though varied, belief system embracing certain unified ideas -- the authority of the Vedas in a broadly defined canon, and a striving for a dharmic life -- as opposed to a merely geographic designation.

Morales says that Hinduism's grip on the imagination of young people born into Hindu families has declined as more and more avowed Hindu teachers professed the theory that all religions are equivalent approaches to the same goal -- a theory he labels radical universalism. Although Srila Prabhupada frequently said that practitioners of Krishna Consciousness should not be considered Hindu, one supposes he might not have protested the use of the term had Indian spiritual leaders over the last two centuries not conceded so much ground to the exclusive-monotheist concerns of conquering Islamic and Christian countries. A knowledge of common features and an ecumenical desire for mutual religious tolerance should not artificially blur the genuine differences among religions, Morales writes.

Since great acharyas springing from the Hindu tradition took pains to distinguish Vedic philosophy from atheism, Buddhism and Jainism, such examples of classical, unapologetic apologetics ought still to inform the Hindu mainstream today, he claims. What happened instead, however, was different, he writes: "Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to 'westernize' and 'modernize' traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords."

Morales criticises Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj movement for his "crypto-Christianity" and the idiosyncratic, self-styled godmen Ramakrishna and Vivekananda for marginalising authentic Vedanta while appearing to exalt it. He does not shrink from espousing a call to arms: "We must free ourselves . . . and re-embrace an authentically classical form of Hinduism that is rooted in the actual scriptures of Hinduism, that has been preserved for thousands of years by the various disciplic successions of legitimate acharyas, and that has stood the test of time."

Radical universalism, Morales writes, is riven by four fallacies, each of which he takes pains to demolish in detail, using excluded-middle arguments that would do a Dvaitin proud. Assuming all religions to be the same, a doctrine espoused by the radical universalists who today lay claim to the mantle of Hindu thought, would lead to the logical fallacy of Hinduism being superior to all other religions whilst being equal to them. Assuming the moral rules of all religions to be the same flies in the face of the observed reality that they are not equivalent, giving rise to the untenable view that "diametrically opposed ethical principles are all valid" and, hence, all ethical systems are negated.

In the third of the fallacies, Morales claims that radical universalism will hollow out Hinduism: "If we say that the ancient teachings and profoundly unique spiritual culture of Hinduism is qualitatively no better or no worse than any other religion, then what is the need for Hinduism itself? . . . The self-abnegating absurdity of a 'Hindu' Radical Universalism reduces Hinduism itself to a theologically empty shell, a purposeless and amorphous religious entity whose only individual contribution to the realm of religious history is to negate its own existence by upholding the teachings of every other religion on earth, while simultaneously denying its own inherent distinctiveness."

In the fourth fallacy, Morales points out that not merely the paths, but the goals, of various religious systems are profoundly different. Unconsciously echoing Srila Prabhupada's argument that one cannot get to Delhi by buying a train ticket to Baroda, he points out that the mayavadi argument that all paths lead to the mountain-top is not as appropriate as boldly declaring that different paths lead up different mountains. The mountains of the Christian, Muslim, Jain and Buddhist cannot be the same as the mountain for the follower of Sanatana Dharma: "Each of these different types of religion has its own categorically unique concept of salvation and of the Absolute toward which they aspire. Each concept is irreconcilable with the others."

While outlining the very serious problems faced by a truly ecumenical movement, beyond arguing for tolerance Morales has not offered much towards a solution of inter-religious conflict. He has, however, exposed very serious flaws in the Wittgensteinian "All philosophies are of equal value" theory. His analysis of the mayavadi mistranslation of the shastric statement ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti, 'God is one, despite sages calling [Him] by various names' (Rg Veda 1.164.46), is devastating: " This verse is not talking about multiple paths for achieving liberation (since it does not even mention 'paths'). It is not talking about the various means of knowing God. Rather, it is a straightforward ontological statement commenting upon the unitive nature of the Absolute, that God is one."

For the Vaisnava who aspires also to be a critical thinker, Morales also illuminates a classic tenet about the need for shastra, guru and sadhu to acquire knowledge, or to determine the validity of some approach towards serving Sri Krishna:

For knowledgeable and traditional followers of Hinduism, such concerns as personal ethical decisions, philosophical judgments and the efficacy of spiritual practices (sadhana) must be in accord with three specific epistemological criteria. These three are: 1) Shastra: The divine scriptural guidance of Hinduism (including the Vedas, Upanisads, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.); 2) Acharya: Authentic spiritual preceptors who teach the truths of Hinduism with uncompromising honesty, in accord with an authentic Vedic understanding, and who wholly personify what they teach. Such authentic spiritual preceptors in the past have included such truly great acharyas as Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva; 3) Viveka: One's own inherent capacity for intelligent discernment of truth versus untruth, reality versus illusion. It is only by deriving knowledge of metaphysical, religious and philosophical questions in accordance with these three epistemic mechanisms that we avoid being cheated by either our own internal tendencies toward self-delusion, or by externally sourced false dogmas.

Morales's substitution of viveka for the sadhu in Srila Prabhupada's formulation may be very helpful in ongoing philosophical debate within ISKCON and the broader Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition. It supports the application of reason as an important criterion of devotional practice, and it may strengthen devotees seeking to cultivate such reason that, in so doing, they are not opposing the thoughts and deeds of previous sadhus, but following in their footsteps on the path to becoming sadhus themselves. In one paragraph, he directly commends Srila Prabhupada for not subscribing to the popular notion of radical universalism:

In the present generation we have been blessed with the sagacious guidance of many truly authentic traditionalist Hindu gurus and teachers. These gurus, many of whom represent some of the most ancient lineages (sampradayas) of classical Hinduism . . . included: Swami Chinmayananda, Pujya Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, Shivaya Subramuniya Swami, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Sri Vamadeva Shastri, Sri Chinna Jeeyar Swami, and Sri Rangapriya Swami, among many others. We need to help facilitate the work of such truly genuine Dharma leaders if we wish to witness the renewal of authentic Hinduism.

Where Morales falls down, in my opinion, is in his seeing a role for political movements such as the Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the revivification of authentic dharma, whether one uses the term 'Hindu' or not. We may grant the RSS the right to form political pro-Hindu parties, but India is far healthier as a secular nation than it would be as a Hindu theocracy.

The author concludes his lengthy essay with an exhortation to escape recent tendencies within popular Hinduism to ape the fashions of other faiths:

If we want Hinduism to survive so that it may continue to bring hope, meaning and enlightenment to untold future generations, then the next time our son or daughter asks us what Hinduism is really all about, let us not slavishly repeat to them that "all religions are the same". Let us instead look them in their eyes, and teach them the uniquely precious, the beautifully endearing, and the philosophically profound truths of our tradition. . . truths that have been responsible for keeping Hinduism a vibrantly living religious force for over 5000 years. Let us teach them Sanatana Dharma, the eternal way of Truth.

The Urge to Merge
Palani, Sivasiva

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/1991/04/1991-04-05.shtml

Hindu spiritual imagination and creativity are endlessly protean, capable of the most radical changes, fearless about cobbling new interpretations. It is a strength which if not feared must be admired by all who witness its courageous and sometimes foolhardy self-transformations. So prolific is this ability to cross-pollinate, gene-splice and hybridize philosophies that the question is often raised whether there exists a singular thing we can call Hinduism. "The answer to this question," one academic said, "has always seemed obvious, but never quite clear. Of course, Hinduism exists - but then what exactly is it? This is probably the most enduring puzzle of South Asian studies."

Thus it is that a newcomer to Hinduism is confounded by a wild assortment of denominations. One is austere, while its neighbor is a hedonistic reveler in things worldly. One is based solely on the power of the Guru to illumine, while the next holds as its first principle a denial of all masters and the elevation of the seeker's autonomy. One shouts from the rooftops that "Man may become God," while nearby another is preaching that "God has become man, the avatar is here." The Westerner, accustomed to tidy definitions of the orthodox and the heterodox, is astounded to discover that all these - and much, much, more - enjoy the community's reverential acceptance. "They are trying to find God," the man in the village street thinks to himself, "and that is more important than how they are trying."

Universalism is an amazingly widespread phenomenon in the Hindu experience, so new there is no Sanskrit term for it. By universalism we mean the all-embracing spirit which spurs Hindus to find a common ground in all religions, to put crosses, crescents and Stars of David on their letterheads and to prefer irenics to polemics. This urge to merge traditions has neither equal nor parallel in any other faith.

Up until a few centuries ago, India knew precious little of what lay outside its borders. A highly sophisticated system of coping with indigenous schools of thought, which shared basic precepts, had evolved. When India encountered Islam and Christianity through invaders and colonizers, it turned its genius on the problem and found ways to get along, even to embrace foreign thought, slightly redefined - redefinitions that missionaries thought insidious, for they allowed the Hindu to both acknowledge another spiritual tradition and hold tightly to his own.

Neo-Hindu, neo-Vedantic universalism is burgeoning these days. It appeals to a growing congregation of seekers who intuit that religious contentions are wrongheaded and dangerous. It appeals also to those who have stopped believing the preacher's sermon or have had uninspiring experiences in a church or group and turn away from anything institutional. If their spiritual aspirations are not entirely dismantled, they often take refuge in universalism, enjoying its vision of the oneness of paths and its avoidance of the dissention and disagreement that religions can indulge in.

For all its merits, Hindu universalism has some serious drawbacks. For one, it is seldom truly universal. I cannot think of a single group that draws equitably from all traditions. What usually happens is that the outer trappings are sanitized, but the inner teachings remain Hindu. Classes are held on the Gita, hatha yoga and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras to guide meditative disciplines. An ayurvedic diet is followed and simple puja offered in the ashram shrine. Satsang is held each evening. Hardly universal.

Another problem is that universalism can engender a wishy-washy approach to the serious business of seeking the Divine. In trying to be all things, aspirants fail to be any completely. Traditions which demand much of their followers also give them much by way of spiritual fire, intense commitment, cultural treasures and exacting disciplines. These are essential on the spiritual path. There is something powerful about the devotee who is one-pointed, fervent, standing with all his might upon his small rock. He has a passion and coherence that the universalist wandering his wider sandy beach does not possess.

Another problem with Hindu universalism is its survivability. Can it preserve the very things which gave it life? Like a father who sees his son leave the home and renounce his family, we are pained when Hindu universalists reach the point where they "transcend" Hindu dharma. Our sorrow is twofold: first, groups tend to live only as long as their leaders, and second followers and their children are denied the richness of culture and lifestyle that nurtured the leader in the first place. It often happens that a Hindu leader of a universalist movement will himself maintain a private Hindu lifestyle sharing it sparingly with disciples, even if they seek it out. Followers sense there is more, and long for the fullness of the master's way, for all that he had on his own sacred journey. But the fear arises, and it is a genuine apprehension, that by bringing Hindu ways into the group those who came for other reasons will be offended and may leave. Ironically, those who desire the undiluted tradition of the master are compelled to seek it elsewhere.

Another difficulty with universalism is that it is frequently reabsorbed into the surrounding religious environment. The followers of Paramahansa Yogananda are a case in point. He taught a broad universalism to many Americans who read Autobiography of a Yogi and were enthralled. Yogananda initiated them in the mystical and meditative arts, but not into Hinduism. During his life, things went well. After he passed, however, many were drawn back into the Christian community from which they had come. Even leaders, initiated swamis, eventually left Yogananda's path, reembracing Christianity. Never having been required to espouse Hinduism, monks took off their robes, replaced bhajans with hymns and allowed their spiritual center of gravity to return to their childhood samskaras.

Sri Ramakrishna is sometimes listed among the universalists, and certainly his disciples were its eloquent spokesmen. But his cosmic vision was inextricably linked to his Hinduness. Similarly, the Sai Baba movement, though it bears a cross and crescent among its institutional symbols and propounds a wide universalism, is unabashedly Hindu and those who approach it are taken by the hand and drawn nearer to Sanatana Dharma, not away from it. This seems to approach an ideal for Hindu groups, a gentle tension between the spirit which must break all the magic chains and soar sacred winds of consciousness and the body which must have its earthy place and sustenance.