Half full or Half empty

Half Full or Half Empty

‘Is the glass half full or half empty?’ If this question is asked, I would say, ‘Both are wrong. Actually, it is half filled with water and half with air. As the Tamil proverb says: what you observe is a lie; what you hear is a lie; only proper inquiry alone can help you know the whole truth.’ [கண்ணால் காண்பதும் பொய்; காதால் கேட்பதும் பொய் ; தீர விசாரிப்பாதே மெய்]

This fact is applicable to every apologetic, particularly related to one’s faith, especially when comparing it with other faiths. This is what I felt when I listened to Prof. Kapoor’s talk comparing Abrahamic faiths with Hinduism [https://youtu.be/fUuVFSrrwC4?si=4WNxbyAQpujP8p0h]. A typical modern Hindu scholar, he defended a few selected doctrines and points in comparison with Abrahamic faiths. Those who know nothing about other faiths, particularly about Abrahamic faiths, might take his message as the gospel truth. But a student like me, though not an academician or scholar, but interested in learning from scholars, finds it difficult to accept it as complete truth. There are valid points in Kapoor’s talk, but when further reflected upon, I found that what he presents only represents one perspective about Hinduism.

So in this reflection, not a response, I will select only a few topics from his talk and share my views.

Apologetics

When it comes to apologetics, it all depends on whom you ask the question: a scholar or a layperson. While a scholar would be more objective and selective, a layperson would be more practical and even eclectic.

Scripture

In a sense, Prof. Kapoor is correct that we cannot strictly say that religious literature in Hinduism is ‘Scripture’ in the same way it is considered in other faiths. As Kapoor says, they are more ‘literature of wisdom.’ This can be authenticated by the fact that the ultimate authority in Hinduism, the Veda, is derived from the root word ‘vid,’ which means ‘to know’ or ‘knowledge.’ At the same time, we should also keep in mind that, when we say the Veda is without an author, it is “apaurusheya,” meaning it was not created by God but is self-existing and eternally existing. Therefore, it is co-eternal with God. At the same time, the Veda itself is Bhagavan, calling it “Veda Bhagavan,” elevated to the status of final authority in Hinduism. For instance, when any contradiction arises between Sruti and Smriti, the authority of Sruti alone holds final. In that sense, it has more authority than Smriti. The same applies to Dharma. There are various sources of Dharma, but the ultimate authority is the Veda. The Veda is the source of Dharma.

The same is true when it comes to sectarian scripture. For example, in Sri Vaishnavism in Tamil Nadu, the Divya Prabandham is called the Tamil Veda. It is considered equal to the Veda, but Nammalvar and others wrote that Narayana himself, using the Alvars, composed those poems, singing his praises.1 In that sense, all the Prabandhams are regarded as the very word of Narayana. This could be extended even to Puranas, as originally they were first narrated by God (e.g., Shiva to Parvati) and then passed to others.2 This is also true with Sastras like Manu Smriti, which was first promulgated by God and then came to human beings.3 Srimad Bhagavad Gita is the song sung by God, viz., Krishna. One recent example suffices here. Late Sri Jagadguru Chandrasekara Saraswathi Swami of Kanchi [popularly known as ‘Maha Periyava’] had all his talks compiled and published as ‘Daivattin Kural’ = Voice of the Divine, published by Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, as he is now venerated as God by his followers. In that sense, all of them are the word of God and thus come closer to the sense of Scripture.

But for me, the highlight is the statement that Kapoor made that since these are not religious scriptures, they can be torn or even burnt, and it won’t offend a Hindu. But this is not the case in practice. Even if Hindus don’t mind, the law of the land won’t permit it, and it is a criminal offense as it hurts others’ religious sentiments. Though India is a secular country, like some European secular countries, in the name of ‘freedom of expression,’ one cannot burn the scriptures of other faiths, as happened in Holland and Sweden.

In this, Western people have their own definition of ‘secularism.’ One can raise secessionist slogans against another country in the name of freedom of speech or expression, but they cannot do it against their own country, then it is treason as it happens in Canada, America, and Britain (against India), or even openly promote terrorist activities against another country in the name of ‘fundamental rights,’ but not against their own country. But here in India, we have a different kind of secularism, treating all religions equally, not giving priority to one religion over another (still, the religious minorities receive several concessions and favors in the name of religion, which are denied to Hindus who remain the majority. This inconsistency is not removed due to political reasons).

Karma

Karma emphasizes the moral responsibility of the doer. It insists that one cannot blame fate, God, or time for the outcomes of their actions. Instead, karma asserts that whatever you do, you must face the consequences. This is a fundamental doctrine of karma.

In this context, one cannot transfer their karma to another person, nor can someone else face the consequences of one’s actions. What you sow, you must reap. However, various practices in Hinduism, such as rituals, atonements, offerings, or pilgrimages, are sometimes believed to transfer or mitigate karma.4

The line dividing karma and fate is very thin and often difficult to discern. Whether an event is due to karma or fate depends on the individual’s perspective. For instance, present circumstances may result from past karma (prarabdha karma), but how one navigates these circumstances and shapes their future depends on their present actions.

Professor Kapoor illustrates this with a reference to the dialogue between Draupadi and Yudhishthira in the Virat Parva of the Mahabharata. Yudhishthira argues that it was not fated for him to lose everything in the dice game; he had the option to refuse the gamble or withdraw his stakes. His choice not to do so was his mistake.

Yet, a counterpoint is that even the moral choices we make are influenced by our past karma. Dr. Radhakrishnan’s example of playing cards: One does not have the right to decide which cards should come to him, but still, it depends on how he plays to decide his victory or loss. But the counterpoint to this is that even this was decided by your karma (prarabdha karma) in a previous life, which alone would decide which cards should come to you. This highlights that while our actions might determine outcomes, those actions are still guided by past karma, which could be seen as a form of predestination or fatalism. This duality shows the complexity of applying doctrinal teachings to personal experiences.5

In apologetic works or discussions, doctrines like karma are often presented objectively, focusing on their theoretical aspects. However, when individuals are personally affected, such as in an accident or loss, they might attribute these experiences to their prarabdha karma rather than acknowledging their own role or mistakes. This duality illustrates the complexity of applying doctrinal teachings to personal experiences.

Sin

Kapoor’s talk on sin highlights the complexities within Hindu thought. As Swami Vivekananda famously said, “The only sin is calling man a sinner.” In one sense, this is true. The Atman, being a minute part of God or very Brahman, in its original state remains sinless. But trapped in maya, it can commit many errors and mistakes that could be called ‘sins in work,’ which can be removed either by personal prayachitta (propitiation), rituals, or by the grace of gods in bhakti. According to Kapoor, Bhakti was invented for this purpose to handle the karma theory related to sin.

Having said this, we can still find many slokas, mantras, and even regional poems by saints that come closer to ‘sin in principle’ than mere ‘sins in work.’ I will only quote a few here, recognizing the fact that by giving various interpretations to all of them, an apologist can show that they do not talk about ‘original’ sin in the sense found in Abrahamic faiths. So I will not provide my own interpretation, leaving it to the reader to decide, accepting the fact that while these slokas and poems could come closer to the concept of ‘sin in principle,’ yet the overall view in Hinduism is that the atman, being a minute part of God, is pure and sinless:

Not because one does not read Veda or dharmasastras that one is a sinner. But as the milk is sweet by its nature, human is a sinner by her nature. (quoted from memory).

[na dharma shastram patatiti karanam; na vedhatyamana ca duraathmanaha; shubavavatre tatoruchate, yada prakrute maduram gavaam payaha]

O Krishna, by what is one impelled to commit sin, even unwillingly, as if driven by force?—Gita 3:36

[अतकेन प्रेक्तोयम् पापम् चरती पूर्विष्यः 

अनिच्छन्नभि वार्षनेय बलादेव निजोनितेव  ]

“I know what is righteous but do not follow it; I know what is righteous but do not abandon the wrong. Whatever is done by some divine will in my heart, that alone I do.” 6

“I am a sinner, with sinful actions and a sinful soul, born out of sin. Save me, O Lord, from all sins, O Hari (the divine).”7

Evil, all evil, my race, evil my qualities all,

Great am I only in sin, evil is even my good.

Evil my innermost self, foolish, avoiding the pure,

Beast am I not, yet the ways of the beast I can never forsake.

I can exhort with strong words, telling men what they should hate,

Yet can I never give gifts, only to beg them I know.

Ah! Wretched man that I am, whereunto came I to birth?8

These examples reflect the diverse perspectives on sin within Hinduism, showcasing both the acknowledgment of human fallibility and the broader theological context.

Monotheism

Prof. Kapoor correctly stated that Hinduism is not God-centric but ‘life’-centric. In this sense, gods were created to address the needs and questions related to life, similar to how philosophy developed. Among the three major entities—Atman (soul), Jagat (world), and Brahman (the ultimate reality)—the Atman is central or foundational, which necessitated thinking and talking about Jagat and Brahman.  In a sense atman is the centre to understand or approach both creation and Brahman.  We can even replace ‘atman’ ‘jeev’ to life as Kapoor used.  Then in that sense ‘Life’ is the centre in which all the three: atman, creation and Brahman [existence, ultimate reality but definitely not God] are based on understanding it [viz. Life].

However, Kapoor’s claim that Judaism is ‘monotheistic’ is puzzling. The Hebrew Bible, particularly in the early texts,

 reflects a more henotheistic belief system, where one god, Yahweh, is worshiped, but the existence of other gods is not outright denied as we found in Islam. Over time, this evolved into monotheism, where Yahweh was declared as the sole god, and other gods were dismissed as false or non-existent. In contrast, Hinduism acknowledges a plurality of gods and even the concept of a single, unifying Brahman, without the exclusivity seen in Abrahamic traditions.9

Moreover, within the scope of Hinduism, there are practices and philosophical systems that resemble monotheism, such as the worship of a single deity (e.g., Vishnu in Vaishnavism or Shiva in Shaivism) while acknowledging the existence of others. This form of ‘monotheism within polytheism’ highlights Hinduism’s flexibility in accommodating diverse beliefs.

Thus, while Kapoor’s statement aligns with a certain interpretation of Hinduism, it does not capture the full complexity of Hindu theological thought, nor does it fully address the nuances of monotheism within other religions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Prof. Kapoor’s comparison of Hinduism with Abrahamic faiths offers valuable insights but presents only one side of the story. Apologetics, by nature, often focuses on defending particular viewpoints, but a deeper, more comprehensive inquiry is necessary to grasp the full picture. As in the case of the proverbial glass of water, both perspectives—half-full and half-empty—offer partial truths. To understand the whole, we must consider all angles and be open to the complexities and contradictions inherent in religious beliefs and practices.

This reflection aims not to counter Prof. Kapoor’s views but to encourage a more nuanced understanding of these topics. In doing so, we can better appreciate the richness of religious traditions and the diverse ways in which people find meaning and purpose in their lives.

Dayanand Bharati

Gurukulam, 22-8-2024

Notes

1 What can I say? Now becoming one with me, sweet life,

 he makes me sing sweet songs with my own words.

 With his own words, the lord of illusion praises himself,

 the one who sings before me, the first of the three forms.

 —Clooney, Francis X. S.J., and Archana Venkatesan (trans.), Tiruvaymoli, Penguin Classics. Forthcoming. (p. 136)

 …He speaks these words, but, equally, they are spoken to him. He stands embodied to listen—we are back where we started—and then, trickster that he is, embodies himself within the devotee to speak to him.

—Nammalvar: A Hundred Measures of Time. Tiruviruttam. Translated from the Tamil by Archana Venkatesan, Penguin Books India, 2014, pp. 136-37 (emphasis original)

2 Parvati Uvacha: Devadeva Mahadeva, Puranottama Bheshaja | Kathayasva Maha-tattvam, Yena Gacchami Shashvatam ||”

(Translation: “Parvati said: O Lord of Lords, O Mahadeva, You are the best among the Puranas’ narrators. Please tell me the great principles by which I can attain the eternal state.”)—Ch. 1.

In response, Lord Shiva begins narrating the stories and teachings that form the essence of the Linga Purana.

This type of dialogue, where Shiva imparts knowledge to Parvati, is a recurring theme in several other Puranas as well, including the Vayu Purana and Shiva Purana. These texts often begin with or include sections where the divine couple engages in such enlightening conversations.—accessed by AI 22-8-2024

3 In the Manu Smriti, there is a reference to the divine origin of the text, often describing how the teachings were revealed by the gods to Manu. One such reference is:

Manu Smriti, Chapter 1, Verse 1:

“Manu Uvacha: Yaduktam Brahmanaih Sastram, Purushen Prajapatih | Hrudaye Bhramanai Purna, Tanme Shrinu Mahadbhutam ||”

(Translation: “Manu said: That which has been spoken by the Brahmanas as the sacred text, which was imparted to me by the creator, Prajapati, listen to it, for it is most wonderful.”)

This verse indicates that Manu is conveying the teachings he received from Prajapati, a form of Lord Brahma, highlighting the divine origin of the Manu Smriti and its transmission to mankind through Manu.—Open GBT, accessed 22-8-2024

4 There are plenty of reference about this concept of transferring one’s karma in the scholarly works by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and Puraanas, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology,University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980, The Hindus An Alternative History, New Delhi, Penguin/Viking. 2009.  There are several references on this point from other scholarly works like Prof. Kane, etc.  This is not limited only with Hinduism, as McEvilley observes:

     This karmic transfer is the opposite of a more famous later idea of transferring karma, that philanthropic “transfer of the other and the self” (paratma–parivartana) formulated by the Mahayana Buddhist author Santideva in the Bodhicaryavatara.  In that theory, one can transfer one’s good karma to another and take on the other’s bad karma, in a saintly act of self-sacrifice (Bodhicaryavatara {The Way of the Bodhisattva)} VIII.120)….— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008.  p. 228

Also see regarding the transfer of karma by Herman W. Tull, ‘KARMA’ in   Sushil Mittal & and Gene Thursby,  The Hindu World, New York, [2004] Reprint 2018, Pp. 309-331

5 Sukumari Bhattachari, Fate and Fortune in the Indian scriptures, New Delhi, Foundations Books, 2014, p. 8

6 जानामि धर्मम् नचेमे प्रबर्ति 

जानामि धर्मम् नचेमे निवर्ति 

केनापि देवेन हर्दियस्तितेन यतानीक्तोभी तता करोमी 

This shloka is found in Pandava Geeta and Vidyaranya Madhava as Pandya has answered. Maybe this shloka is not even present in Mahabharata.—Internet, accessed on 22-8-2024

7 पापोहम पापकर्महम पापात्मा पापा संभवः 

त्राहिमाम् पंडरिकाशं सर्वपापम हरे हरे  –oted from memory

8  குலம்பொல்லேன் குணம்பொல்லேன் குறியும்பொல்லேன்

          குற்றமேபெரிதுடையேன் கோலமாய

நலம்பொல்லேனான்பொல்லேன் ஞானியல்லே

          னல்லாரோடிசைந்திலேனடுவேனின்ற

விலங்கலேன்விலங்கலாதொழிந்தேனல்லேன்

          வெறுப்பனவுமிகப் பெரிதும்பேசவல்லேன்

இலம்பொல்லேனிரப்பதல்லால் ஈயமாட்டே

          னென்செய்வான்றோன்றினே னேழையேனே–

Tirunavukkarasu, F. Kingsbury, and G.E.Phillips, Hymns of the Tamil Saivite Saints, Calcutta, Association Press, 1921, song 35, p. 44

9 [for more on this see: https://dayanandbharati.in/judaism-and-hinduism-2/

 and also the articles: Oh my God]