Identity Question: Part Two

Identity Question: Part Two

Hello Swamiji,

I have been having some interesting conversations with a close friend of mine (PGK), who is now in Denmark. He had some very serious questions about Hindu identity, and I tried answering them to the best of my knowledge.

His main question was, “How is Hinduism defined?” (Is there any one-line answer for this that is accurate?) and “What does it mean to have a ‘Hindu identity’?” It would be great if you could clarify this, as I did not want to give him any misleading principles.

I can even include him in the emails so that we can have a conversation on this. He would definitely be very interested. Please let me know your thoughts.

PGK:

For Hindus, there is definitely no straightforward identity based on rituals or traditions. My disdain for the term ‘religion’ is also closely related to this aspect. Boxing and labeling a diverse set of beliefs is impossible, whereas it is much easier for the ‘Abrahamic’ religions. Their whole methodology of a ‘top-down’ or ‘one-book-down’ approach is very well suited for a clear identity. Reversing the gaze or doing a purva paksh, we notice that this single aspect is what helps them achieve a semblance of respectability when approaching naïve civilizations.

Reverse take: We should definitely carve out an identity—but not carve it on their platform. We cannot and should not carve it based on traditions, the number of gods, or rituals. These are too diverse, and in the process of carving a single identity, we would invariably alienate the less-represented. We should carve out an identity based on values, on ‘Dharma,’ which will “never” overlap with the Abrahamic religions.

I have had a few conversations with Christians/Atheists here in Denmark, and the predominant question they ask is, “If you, as a Hindu, believe in multiple gods, then you should also believe in Christianity.” At first, it was a conundrum, but after some introspection and reading—mainly Malhotra and a couple of others—my reply now is, “I would definitely believe in any religion that accepts the possibility of another religion being completely equal. In other words, if your religion said Christ was not the ONLY savior, then I would definitely believe in it.” This mostly puts them off, but some come around to accepting the fact and it leads to serious soul-searching for them.

SKM:

PGK is one hundred percent correct about his view on Hindu identity in comparison with the Christians’ (wrong) approach to the identity of others (religious and non-religious). Both traditionally and historically, Christians have held such a wrong view, from which they cannot escape. So, for me, we need not even think about our identity on their terms or anybody’s terms.

At the same time, living on this earth, no one can claim to live in a ‘no man’s land.’ The first criterion that decides identity in modern times is not one’s values, principles, religion, or culture, but the Law (or Constitution), at least in India. So we Hindus should begin from there, i.e., what our Constitution says about our identity. As there is plenty of information available on this, I need not elaborate here.

Regarding the ‘value’ that should define our identity as a principle, that too is very elusive. What ‘dharma’ is, is a contested question, and developing a Hindu identity based on it, though good and reasonable, is still very elusive.1 As Yudhishtira himself says:

tarko’pratisthah srutayo vibhinnaah; naiko rsir yasya vacah pramaanam | 

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhaayaam; mahaajano yena gatah sa panthaah||

(Inferential logic is uncertain, i.e., it gives rise to various inferences according to the degrees of intelligence in people; the srutis, or the precepts of the Vedas, are all mutually conflicting; and, as regards the smritis, there is not a single Rishi whose precept we can regard as more authoritative than another. If we seek the fundamental principle of worldly dharma, it is lost in darkness, that is, it cannot be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence. Therefore, the path followed by venerable2 persons is the path of dharma.)

{B.G. Tilak, Tr. by A. S. Sukthankar: Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya, seventh edn., Poona, 1986}

After quoting from the scholars, my personal view is that a common Hindu least bothers about all kinds of hair-splitting analyses of words and concepts. She lives life as it comes, based on the values set by her family, (caste) community, and society. So, however theoretically we argue over the identity of a Hindu (based on one’s own ideology),3 for me the right question is not ‘What is Hinduism?’ but ‘Who is a Hindu?’ Then:

A Hindu is a member of a particular community, irrespective of her faith. If I understand our Constitution vaguely, it too endorses this view along with the practical identity of Hindus.

This is the Hindu reality in India. When I say ‘in India,’ I have to recognize that diaspora Hindus now have to work out their identity in a different context (as they are not living under the ‘Hindu Personal Law’ there), recognizing the fact that their diasporic identity (or struggle) cannot be universal or ‘pan-Hindu.’

In this post-modern context, any universal claim needs to be questioned, and at the same time, no local context can remain an island of its own, uninfluenced by some universal views.

I know my response raises more questions than provides specific answers to PGK’s views. But not to get lost in too many sub-points:

I agree with PGK’s view about Hindu identity but want to qualify that he too began to think about Hindu identity based on his response to the Christian view, and not independently as a Hindu—keeping his social and cultural roots (now with a diasporic identity crisis). The moment we keep ‘the Other’ (here the Christians) as the purva-pakshin, we will end up giving a wrong answer to the right question about our identity.

Having shared my initial view, I have a few questions about PGK’s comments:

We should carve an identity on the basis of values, on the basis of ‘Dharma,’ which is something that will “never” overlap with the Abrahamic religions.–PGK

Though life cannot be compartmentalized (as social, cultural, religious, etc., at least for a Hindu), what is the ‘value’ that he means here? 

On what basis does he say that ‘dharma’ will ‘never’ overlap with the Abrahamic religions?–Db

I would definitely believe in any religion that accepts the possibility of another religion being completely equal.–PGK

Does Hinduism accept the possibility of another religion being completely equal? No two Hindu sampradayas accept each other as equal. This is true with deities too.–db

Notes

1. Dharma does not have a definitive form.  It has an ever-elusive nature that has been well illustrated in the story from the Mahabharata.  It is also open-ended and rational.  Dharma does not rule, but (as Robert Lingat once put it{The Classical Law of India, trn. By J.D.M. Derrett, Berkeley: University of California Press. 1973}), it reigns from above.  It is a going concern of the society as well as the individual.  It demands the best from our practical wisdom….— The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002,  p. 69

2 Prof. Sharma’s comments on this word ‘venerablepersons’ will help us to understand this concept in its right context:

…The word mahaajana can mean either (1) a great person or (2) a great number of persons.  Although the first sense is the obvious one, tradition, in this context, favours the second sense, an understanding which is surprisingly logical.  If it has already been asserted that the sages, who were great persons, differ among themselves, then how does the great man, the mahaanjana, help us overcome the dilemma?  The point then is that if contradiction is to be avoided, as in a previous line the sages, who are or were presumably great persons, are declared to be at odds regarding (p.19) dharma, the sense of a ‘great number of persons’ must be favoured.  To put the matter succinctly: consensus is the arbiter of dharma.

          …this is how P.V.Kane translates the term.  He renders the entire verse as follows (from a text in which the first line read tarko ‘pratistah):

rationalization is unstable, Vedas are in conflict with each other, there is no single sage whose opinion is held to be authoritative (by all, the truth about Dharma is enveloped in a cave (i.e. it cannot be clearly discerned) and that therefore the path to be followed) is the one followed by the great mass of people. [History of Dharmasastra, vol. V, pt. II, pp. 1271.]

He also points out that Sankara has employed the word in this sense in his gloss on Brahmasutra iv.2.7.  In fact Nilakantha, in the sixteenth century, in his commentary on this verse takes it clearly in this sense; for he glosses it as bahujanasammatamityarthah.  The late Professor B.K. Matilal# tentatively offered the sense as an open possibility, which is my unhesitating choice also.— Arvind Sharma, Hinduism for our Times, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2001, pp.19-20

#…the public rituals in classical India used to be prefixed by a benediction ritual-recitation (mangala), where the following phrase was commonly used:

bahujana-sukhaaya bahujana-hitaaya ca.

For the sake of the happiness of many people, and for the sake of the good of many.—Matilal, op. cit.  p. 68

2 This view of ‘maximum good to maximum number of people always clashes with society and an individual.  This topic itself is a big subject deserving separate study—db

3. …texts are basically normative and prescriptive rather than descriptive of actual practices, not to mention the fact that most of the texts cannot be dated with any precision.  All ideology is, of course, normative and prescriptive by definition.—‘ The Ideology of Gupta Kingship ‘ Lorenzen, in Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History, David N. Lorenzen, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2006, p. 184