Pluralism versus Universalism

PLURALISM is the REALITY in life and UNIVERSALISM always remains a utopian ideal however it seems to look good for humanity.  And the Indian reality is: UNITY in DIVERSITY and not UNIFORMITY…. Whichever meets the felt needs of the people—physical, mental, moral, social, and spiritual, alone will appeal to them, however it might look immature to others, particularly for the elitist who have hegemonic view about their idealism… Sometimes such speakers [like Sri Sivam] with real inner pain and compassion rebukes others with Righteous indignation to warn against such activities. We call this in Tamil as ‘Marakkarunai’ as a doctor uses her knife for operation, however that might hurt the patient…. But my question here is whose fault was that.  Is it on the part of the temple tradition to display the image once in forty years, or the devotees who rushed to see have the darshan within limited period in which the image will be displayed or the administration which is supposed to see that the function goes smoothly without any incident.  The answer is obvious…. The human reality is that we cannot avoid pluralism in life—in thought, speech, or act.  Anything that tries to bring universalism [or advaita] will doom to fail.  So, what could be the best solution for this.  My solution is accepting others as they are and respect their feelings, sentiments, faith expression and aspirations however they might look animistic and immature for a rationalist and elitist.[see below for original thought in Tamil]

UNITY IN DIVESITY IS THE INDIAN MANTRA AND NOT UNIFORMITY.

Part One

I listened to another enriching interview between a famous speaker in Tamilnadu and a journalist who is running his own Youtube channel. The main theme of the talk was ‘pluralism versus universalism’. While the anchor insisted upon accepting pluralism as part of life, the Speaker insisted the need of universalism [he used Advaita] as the need of the hour to bring harmony and brotherhood among the various people all over the world. But PLURALISM is the REALITY in life and UNIVERSALISM always remains a utopian ideal however it seems to look good for humanity.  And the Indian reality is: UNITY in DIVERSITY and not UNIFORMITY.  Wherever this utopian idealism is promoted and even imposed on people [as we find in some Communist and authoritarian countries], it brings its own disharmony among the very same people among whom one wants to bring uniformity.  It curbs the individual choice and freedom to choose as per her aspiration and need.  Of course, as the Speaker said, universalism is the sign of maturity however it is a Himalayan task to be achieved [these are not his exact words but my own paraphrasing his thought]. But what looks as matured for one person need not be the same for another.  Whichever meets the felt needs of the people—physical, mental, moral, social, and spiritual, that alone will appeal to them, however it might look immature to others, particularly for the elitists who have such a hegemonic view about their idealism.   

One example is enough to illustrate my point.  To begin with, the Speaker said that he will never talk about other faiths unless there is a need for it while addressing a mixed crowd where people of all faiths are present.  However, in a passing remark he also mentioned the way people were killed in stampedes during Hajj pilgrimage.  The main context of the point is his questioning of rushing to see the darshan of Attivaradar in Kanchipuram [in Tamil Nādu] which will come once in forty years. [It was the wooden image of Vishnu immersed in the water tank in Kanchipuram which will be raised from the water once in forty years for devotees to have a darshan.]  In the recent festival that was held at Kanchipuram, several people were killed due to stampedes.  And pointing out such irrational act on the part of the devotees the Speaker said that what is the need to have such darshan of a deity whereas the same God is present everywhere and in other less crowded temples where one can go and have a calm and wonderful darshan [again not his exact words but his thought]. While talking about it he even told in Tamil when people will become intellect enough to understand such mad actions [‘அத்திவரதா, புத்தி வராதா’].  Of course, as he used a poetic form of expression though he used the words ‘buddhi varadha’ [won’t people become wise] I know that his intention was not to call those who went to have a darshan as fools [as questioned by the journalist]. We all know about him.  He was not only a great orator but also a matured person who never tried to hurt anyone’s feelings and sentiment.  As we call in Tamil ‘addukku mozhi’ he used the words ‘Attivaradha’ and ‘Buddhi varaadha’ but not with any intention to hurt others.  Sometimes such speakers with real inner pain and compassion rebukes others with Righteous indignation [arach Cheetram] to warn against such activities. We call this in Tamil as ‘Marakkarunai’ as a doctor uses her knife for an operation, however that might hurt the patient. 

But my question here is whose fault was that.  Is it on the part of the temple tradition to display the image only once in forty years, or the devotees who rushed to see have the darshan within a limited period in which the image will be displayed or the administration which is supposed to see that the function goes smoothly without any incident.  The answer is obvious. Though the speaker questioned people for the way they rushed to have the darshan without taking precaution, still he should first have admonished the administration which failed miserably to make proper arrangements for the devotees to have the darshan.  Can the same speaker say that as people are killed in stampedes or in fire, better not to go for pilgrimage, even if it is insisted in any particular faith as an important tenet of the faith.

Though that incident was a real tragedy, still sometimes devotees feel that it was a blessing to die while performing pilgrimage.¹ We all know about the way people get crushed during the Puri Jaganath annual cart festival in the past. Those who killed during Hajj are considered as ‘shaheed’ and considered it as a meritorious act, whether die a natural death or in accident.¹  Every orthodox Jews wish is to die and get buried in Palestine more specifically in Jerusalem.²  We need not talk about the way old people and widows going to Varanasi and other pilgrimage centres to give up their life and cremated there.  All these acts might look irrational and even foolish for a rationalist and elitist but for them their felt need is met in such acts. Taking ‘jeeva samadhi’ where a sannyasi [rather a siddha] is buried alive was a famous practice in Tamilnadu where one can see so many such Jeeva Samadhis.  Though such practice is not allowed now, still few people are doing it secretly. If we consider this irrational and foolish then what to say about the sallekhana³ performed by Jain monks committing ritual suicide.  In rare cases lay people are also permitted after due inquiry and observation but properly guided by Jain monks. What looks archaic and animistic to others might be the true philosophy for them.  For a tribal person who is performing animal sacrifice to have his needs met, our philosophies and elitism in spirituality might look like vain talk floating on the air. Of course, he will never think about others’ views about his practice or having any of his own opinion about such philosophies.  One man’s fetish is another man’s God. [See part Two on this further]

The human reality is that we cannot avoid pluralism in life—in thought, speech, or act.  And anything that tries to bring universalism [or advaita] will doom to failure.  So, what could be the best solution for this.  My solution is to accept others as they are and respect their feelings, sentiments, faith expression and aspirations however they might look animistic and immature for a rationalist and elitist.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY IS THE INDIAN MANTRA AND NOT UNIFORMITY.

Notes

1.. It is interesting to note that if one killed during his pilgrimage due to accident then most of the Hindus considered as ‘Daivakkuttam’ [offense against deity] as the devotee who was killed failed to follow the rituals, particularly purity related to ritual properly.  And even the family members who stays back in home has to follow certain ritual norms till the pilgrims return back home completing the pilgrimage.  For example, when you hear about the death of any kith and kin or friends, one should not convey the condolence to the brived family until pilgrimage is completed and proper puja was performed in the home for the successful completion of that Yatra.  Or when close family members die then the news was conveyed and the pilgrim should return back to participate in the funeral rites and should not continue the pilgrimage for another one year till the annual final rite [sraddha] was performed.

2.. I got this information by Hazrath Abdulla who studied Arbi and trained to become a Maulvi.

3.. …The Jain suicide was the culmination of a twelve-year practice which aimed toward it from the beginning.  Various vows for the final event could be taken, including the vow of immobility.  One Chilatiputta, a Jain, gained fame for lying motionless while his body was eaten by ants….—Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008, p. 279.

That same day Prayogamati decided to embrace sallekhana. She said she would prefer to live up her body rather than have it taken from her.  She said she wanted to die voluntarily, facing it squarely and embracing it, rather than have death ambush her and take her away by force. She was determined to be the victor, not the victim….— The Nun’s Tale, pp. 1-24, in William Dalrymple, Nine Lives: In Search of the Sacred in Modern India, London, Blooms Bury, (2009), Paperback, 2010, p. 24.

Though Sallekhana is performed by Jaina monks it is also allowed for the lay people with the permission and guidance of monks.

…sallekhana, the suicide of the Jaina monks…..— The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, p. 157

4.. …It was a saying, that “to live in Palestine was equal to the observance of all the commandments.” “He that hath his permanent abode in Palestine,” so taught the Talmud, “is sure of the life to come.”… In the third and fourth centuries of our era they still taught, “He that dwelleth in Palestine is without sin.” Centuries of wandering and of changes have not torn the passionate love of this land from the heart of the people. Even superstition becomes here pathetic. If the Talmud (Cheth. iii. a.) had already expressed the principle, “Whoever is buried in the land of Israel, is as if he were buried under the  altar,” one of the most ancient Hebrew commentaries (Ber. Rabba) goes much farther. From the injunction of Jacob and Joseph, and the desire of the fathers to be buried within the sacred soil, it is argued that those who lay there were to be the first “to walk before the Lord in the land of the living” (Psa 116:9), the first to rise from the dead and to enjoy the days of the Messiah….— Alfred Edersheim,  Sketches of Jewish Social Life, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/sketches.htm, pp. 4-5.

Pluralism versus Universalism

Part Two

However we are very humble and use very polite words appealing to others to change their faith expression, which according to us not helping to bring universal brotherhood among the warring factions, is nothing but hegemonic and elitist.

What we claim to have achieved through philosophy, the people following [according only to us] rude and violent rituals can claim to have achieved through their faith expression.  For example, a village priest or a tribal priest sacrificing a goat [and in few cases drinking the raw blood coming out from the animal] will claim to have entered in trance and become one with that deity and giving oracle to their felt need of the people. Or the very deity itself has come and possessed him thereby becoming one with him. Then they might say that what you have claimed to have achieved through philosophy after straining your brain with lots of studies and sadhana, we achieved by doing one traditional ritual. Of course he is not going to come and argue with us and never mind what others think about his religious practices. We may claim that after the trance he will go back to his normal life alone with all kinds of issues and problems which again might hinder to bring harmony and universalism.  Where is the proof that a philosopher who understood advaita and unity of atman with Brahman has ever overcome all kinds of tensions and problems in life to realize that universalism.  Not to criticise the Orator, let me quote one example from his own statement.  When some people accused him as a secret Christian and even published one book glorifying Jesus, he became very upset and lodged a complaint about it to the police.  But they were unable to trace down that person to give some respite to him. The question here is if he understood advaita in its true sense then he shouldn’t be even bothered what others say about him. Even a common matured person will try to ignore such lies and mind her own business rather than take the issue, however serious it might be, to prove her innocence.  It is not any criminal offence against him but only a false opinion and propaganda against him.  Ignoring such lies is the best solution for anyone and more to an advaitian. We witnessed in recent history those who claim to follow the Advaita tradition of Sankara ended up in jail.  This is not to accuse others but to show that even the very same advaita which few think would be a magical wand to solve all conflicts is nothing but another experiment.  There is no point in saying that the failure of one or few individuals won’t dismiss the merit of any philosophy.  Agreed. But even those who claimed to have understood and integrated in their life that too leading millions of followers when failing, then the philosophy also would be questioned, however great it might be in its core.  No philosophy can work in vacuum and without human agencies philosophies will remain mere intellectual entertainment for few people never attracting the mass.

There was a joke about advaita [I think I read this in Ponniyan Selvan by Kalki who criticised such sectarian clashes in the past among Hindus].  One time in a religious debate between an advaitian and Srivaishnava [who follows vishishtadvaita], the latter at the end to prove how the advaitian was wrong began to beat him. When the former questioned about it the latter said, ‘I am not beating you but only beating me.  As atman is Brahman; as we all are one, when I beat you actually I am only beating me’.

Jokes apart, this is the fact. If anyone claims to have understood what advaita is, then she will be the best sadhaka in the whole universe. Beginning from Adi Sankara, even by his own immediate followers who didn’t agree with him on several points and down the centuries hundreds of volumes of books and articles were written on Advaita alone which still evades anyone’s comprehension. And anyone who has comprehended and began to promote is like a person who gives a talk about silence.  The moment one even experienced silence, it would break it.  Of course, others need not agree with my statement and illustration.  I respect their point and they have every right to promote what they think is best for everyone.  But the more one reads on Advaita by various scholars the more she will be confused. Then stop reading and practise advaita, might be the answer.  If we agree with Sankara who said that without proper knowledge one cannot understand the unity between atman and Brahman, then this knowledge, though stands beyond scriptural statements, still cannot attain without proper and diligent reading and understanding of Scriptures [particularly Veda].  And without a proper preceptor [acharya] one cannot understand scriptures, even though she can read it easily in the original.  This being the fact, any lay person without the help of commentaries and articles can never claim to have understood by merely practising it.  Don’t jump and say we have a contemporary example in Sri Ramana Maharishi of Thiruvannamalai who attained that knowledge of advaita on his own without the help of any guru or the aid of books and commentaries. But now to understand Ramana or his experience to follow his example, one has to read all the materials that were written and continue to write about him. Even if anyone has claimed that she has attained that knowledge by practising and not by reading, then will never seek publicity to promote it as that happened in the case of Sri Ramana.  He was minding his own sadhana. But not allowing him to continue his sadhana, others finally dragged into the world and even started a separate movement in his name which does not much reflect his personal sadhana. 

We can continue to debate on these points from various points of view by giving lots of examples from the lives of people and referring to so many books and materials to read and understand.  But all of them finally will again remain silent.  And advaita is one such.  It cannot be propagated or promoted by only practised individually based on one’s aptitude and need but never by conversion to advaitic philosophy. Though traditionally it is claimed that beginning from Sri Adi Sankara it was preached and managed to convert so many followers of other Sampradayas to its fold. The same is claimed and counter-claimed by all Sampradayas, particularly in the biographies written later about them.

So accepting others as they are alone will bring harmony and brotherhood among people and not through imposing our particular idealism however that might look very noble, correct and need of the hour.  Issues need to be solved at the local level not through philosophical discussions but with pragmatic solutions. Every issue in life should be decentralized and localized rather than try to universalize it.  Even those faiths which claim not to discriminate against anyone by birth and gender and are applicable to anyone and everyone under the Sun miserably failed in this.  I know I have passed my limitation and inviting unnecessary controversy which I cannot handle easily, particularly with a person like this orator who has more knowledge and skill to debate such issues.  Well, I shared my views accepting my limitation and others’ rights to promote their ideology however it is not acceptable to others.

4-2-2023, Gurukulam.

வேற்றுமையில் ஒற்றுமை என்பது இந்திய கலாசாரத்தின் அடித்தளம், இந்து மதத்தின் தாரக மந்திரம். ஆனால் இதுதான் உலகம் அனைத்திற்கும் ஏற்புடையது.

என்னதான் Universalis அல்லது அத்வைதம் சிறந்த கொள்கையாக சிலருக்கு இருந்தாலும், அது நடைமுறையில் சாத்தியமாகாது. பிறரை அவர்களுடைய இறை மற்றும் ஆன்மீக நம்பிக்கையின் படியே ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதுதான் சரி.  நாம் கொண்ட கொள்கை நமக்கு சரியாக இருக்கலாம் ஆனால் அனைவருக்கும் சரியாக இருக்க முடியாது.

அதேபோல் சிவம் அவர்கள் ‘அத்திவரதா, புத்தி வராதா’ என்று சொன்னது ஒரு அடுக்கு மொழியில் கூறப்பட்டதே தவிற அதனால் அத்திவரதரை காணவந்தவர்கள் முட்டாள்கள் என்று கூறுவதாக எடுத்துக் கொள்ள முடியாது.  சிவம் அவர்கள் சிறந்த பேச்சாளர் மட்டும் அல்ல, மிகவும் பண்பட்டவர். எனவே அவர் எக்காரணம் கொண்டும் பிறரை புண்படுத்தக் கூடிய வார்த்தைகளை பயன்படுத்தவே மாட்டார். 

இது மிகப்பெரிய விவாதப் பொருள் இதை ஒரு சில வார்த்தைகளால் நாம் விவாதித்து விட முடியாது.