Continued from Part 2

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

1. https://www.boloji.com/articles/1301/the-sword-of-kali–1 (The full essay of Chittaranjan Naik)

2. https://www.boloji.com/articles/1253/does-hinduism-teach (The original article by Dr Frank Morales)

3. Natural Realism and Contact Theory of Perception: Indian Philosophy’s Challenge to Contemporary Paradigms of Knowledge by Chittaranjan Naik

4. On the Existence of the Self: And the Dismantling of the Physical Causal Closure Argument by Chittaranjan Naik

5. 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.)

6. Cultures Differ Differently: Selected Essays of S.N. Balagangadhara (Critical Humanities Across Cultures) Edited by Jakob De Roover and Sarika Rao

7. Reconceptualizing India Studies by Balagangadhara Rao