The debate between so-called ‘rationalism’ and ‘ritualism’ is not a new one. It has persisted throughout history. However, when ‘ritualism’ is presented as the true mark of bhakti (devotion), rationalism often gains the upper hand. This was clearly demonstrated in a TV debate on Vijay TV’s Neeya Naana (You or I), aired on May 24, 2009.
What follows is largely theoretical. But without theory, many of our practices lose their meaning and run the risk of becoming hollow. In theory, bhakti, derived from the root word ‘bhaj,’ means “standing in a personal relationship” with the deity. Bhakti is not limited to religious or spiritual contexts but refers to a personal relationship, such as guru bhakti (devotion to the teacher), pati bhakti (devotion to the husband), raja bhakti (devotion to the king), or desa bhakti (devotion to the nation). In India, bhakti extends even to Bharat Mata, the personified image of the nation. Interestingly, one’s commitment to ideology or principles is not usually defined as bhakti, highlighting that bhakti, like love, is rooted in personal relationships. (As a side note, modern phrases like “I love noodles” or “I love reading” sound odd, as love is typically reserved for living beings who can reciprocate our affection. We can ‘like’ noodles or reading, but love implies deeper, mutual connection.)
Although bhakti is theoretically about relationships, it often remains in theory, and rituals frequently hijack this beautiful concept. Rituals, while they can be an expression of bhakti, become meaningless when we lose sight of their underlying purpose—relationship. The saying “if you love someone, show it” applies well here, as rituals are one way to show devotion. However, when the essence of bhakti is lost, rituals become routine and can even degrade into superstition. In many cases, it is fear—fear of punishment for neglecting a ritual—rather than love that drives people to perform rituals, especially for their kula daivam (family deity), as many participants in the TV program pointed out.
Though I oppose labeling others’ faith and rituals as superstition, we can reduce our own rituals to mere superstition if we fail to understand their true meaning. When that happens, it’s no wonder that rationalistic criticism of rituals thrives. It was interesting to note that many of the young participants in the program, who described their views as ‘rationalistic’ (pahuttarivu in Tamil), looked to figures like Che Guevara, Periyar, Vivekananda, and Raja Ram Mohan Roy as their role models. However, the way they implement their intellectual or rationalistic relationship (bhakti) with these figures is another form of ritual. While it’s true that many of these figures fought against specific injustices (Roy against sati and child marriage, Periyar against caste and theism), their teachings can become another kind of blind faith if their followers focus only on the negative aspects of their struggles without positively implementing their teachings in daily life.
For example, Periyar (E.V. Ramasamy) opposed caste and often targeted Brahmins in his critique. Similarly, he attacked priests in his opposition to theism. This made sense at the time, as the struggle was against an entrenched establishment. But today, Periyar’s followers should focus on living out his teachings rather than merely attacking rituals (which were often equated with bhakti throughout the program) or the faith of their elders. While they may feel compelled to criticize or challenge their elders due to pressure to conform to certain rituals, doing so in a purely negative manner undermines rationalism’s rightful place in such debates.
In conclusion, rationalism insists that our beliefs be grounded in tangible and logical reasoning, and that the scientific method is the most reliable tool for acquiring knowledge. However, there are subconscious and non-rational impulses, beliefs, and intuitions that many consider to be truer or of a higher order than those which operate on a purely rational level. As P.V. Kane aptly notes:
“Rationalism insists that all our beliefs ought ultimately to be based on tangible and definite grounds and that modern scientific method is the only reliable method for acquiring knowledge of all kinds. But there are sub-conscious and non-rational impulses, beliefs, and intuitions in men that are held by men to be truer or of a higher order than what is on the rationalistic level.”
—P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, vol. V, part II, p. 1475
Db. Gurukulam, May 26, 2009
Leave a Reply