A Primer Of Hinduism, D.S. Sarma, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1984
[This book is written in a dialogue form between a daughter and father. So D-stands for daughter and F-for father.—db]
D: And yet whenever I come and ask you to teach me the principles of our religion you put me off with some excuse or other.
F: It is really the duty of the priest and not of the parent. The latter may not always be competent to teach religion. But unfortunately we have no organized priesthood. Our priests only officiate in ceremonies. They do not teach. (p.2) Their emoluments are ridiculously low, and depend upon the whim of the householder. They are not properly trained for the sacred task of maintaining our religious traditions in their original purity and vigour.—pp.2-3 [This is a strange view in Hinduism. Traditionally religious teachings were taught only by the parents in the early days—by telling stories, imparting moral teachings, taking sat-sanghs etc., later by a guru. As far as my knowledge goes, nowhere it is mentioned that it is the priest’s duty to teach religion. Further ‘organized priesthood’ and ‘properly trained’ to maintain religious traditions is written in the context of comparing Hindu priesthood with that of Christianity. –db]
F: …It [Hinduism] allows not only the introduction of new laws but also the production of new scriptures. Else it would be a dead religion.—p.8
F: Hindu society is slowly adjusting itself to the needs of the present time. Only these adjustments are not properly codified and made authoritative. The real test of life in any organism lies in the response it gives to the environment. If our society at any time fails to respond to the needs of the hour, if it fails to follow the lead of its living sages, and if it has not the imagination and the courage to march on and give a new embodiment to the eternal principles of unity, brotherhood and love declared by the Sruti, it will surely perish, and Hindus will go the way of the ancient Greeks and Romans.—p.9
F: …The Hindu scriptures deal with ideal truth, and not with historical fact. This is very well illustrated in the accounts we have in the Puranas of the various Avatars of Vishnu. For these are intended to give only an imaginative representation of God’s help rendered to man at different stages of his evolution.—p.13
F: … Hinduism does not bury its head in the past, nor does it rebelliously secede from the past….—p.15
F: Each Agama consists of four sections—(1) Philosophy, (2) mental discipline, (3) rules for constructing temples and images and (4) religious practices…..—p.16
D: Are all these Agamas based on the Sruti?
F: Yes. Else they would not be authoritative. Some of them may have originated independently of the Veda. But, (p.16) when the communities that produced them entered the Hindu fold, they came under the influence of the Veda, were thoroughly imbued with its spirit and accepted its authority…So there is no doubt that, in spite of their immense diversity in forms and methods of worship, the Agamas are thoroughly Vedic in spirit and character.—p.16-17
D: ….Does Hinduism make converts?
F: Yes. Hinduism, no doubt, does not carry on any aggressive propaganda or make forcible conversions or abuse other religions. But in the course of its history it has peacefully absorbed many communities and changed the character of their religion, while allowing them to retain their customs and manners, and their rites and ceremonies.—p.17
F: It [Vedanta] is considered more satisfactory than the other [philosophies] for three reasons: First, because it duly subordinates individual reason to the revelation of the Veda: secondly, because it has a right conception of the relative importance of the various parts of the Veda: and, thirdly, because it is able to give the most satisfactory answers to all the difficult questions that vex the hearts of religious men.—p.18
D: Is individual reason always to be subordinated to the revelation of the Veda?
F: Yes. For if every individual were to follow his own reason, there would be chaos and no organized religion. (p.18) Moreover the mechanism of human knowledge, consisting of perception and inference, is of use to us only in understanding this world of time and space. But to understand the nature of God, who is above these, we have to supplement the testimony of the sense and reason by something else. And this is sabada or the testimony of the Veda. Thus, in matters of religion, we have three main pramanas or testimonies, namely, perception, inference and scripture. The Veda, as a pramana, is impersonal, independent and eternal. Therefore, mere individual reason has to be subordinated to it. Perception and inference, which are our primary instruments in matters of worldly knowledge, are only secondary here. Their function is only to elucidate the revelation of the Veda.
D: I the Veda then an arbitrary authority overriding our own individual experience?
F: No, no. On the other hand, in the noble words of Samkara, the knowledge of Brahman taught by the Veda reaches its consummation only in individual spiritual experience. And our experience is valid only so far as it conforms to the standard of the Veda. The ultimate ground of Hindu religious belief is not merely the arbitrary authority of a religious tradition or a piece of historical evidence or an individual utterance. But facts of experience which could be ascertained by any man, who is prepared to go through the necessary discipline.—p.18-19
F: … According to the Mimamsa schools of the philosophers, ritual is all in all in the Veda, and the other two [Upasana-Kanda and Jnana-Kanda] parts are to be taken as only accessories to it. This view is rejected by the Vedanta school, which rightly believes that Jnana–Kanda is the most important and that the other two are accessories to it. On account of the right conception of the relative importance of the Pramanas and of the teachings of the Veda, the Vedanta–darsana has superseded all the other Darsanas and still holds the field.—p.20
F: … The Veda is the main source. It is the fountain-head of all Indian culture. Its rituals and sacrifices lead to Karma–Mimamsa. Its Upasanas lead to the Bhakti–doctrine. Its metaphysical disquisitions lead to the logic of Nyaya. Its accounts of creation lead to Samkhya. Its descriptions of religious ecstasy lead to Yoga. Its conception of the cosmic law of Rta leads to that of the moral law of Karma. And its kings and Rishis are the starting point of our Itihasas and Puranas. We may even say that its occasional protests against sacrifice lead to Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all our secondary scriptures namely the Smritis, the Itihasas the Puranas, the Agamas and the Darsanas only develop this or that aspect of the Veda.—p.20
F: The Veda is like a mine of gold, and the later scriptures are like the gold coins of the various ages. When you want to procure things that would make you comfortable, you should have ready money and not a piece of rock with veins of gold in it straight from the mine. Of course, every gold coin that is in the country is ultimately derived from the mine. But it has undergone various processes that make it useful to us at once. The ore has been smelted, the dross has been removed, the true metal has been refined, ptu into moulds and stamped. Similarly, the golden truths of the Veda have been refined by the wisdom of the ages and presented to us in a useful form in our later scriptures. That is why I recommend to you the Gita, rather than the Upanishads.—p.21
F: … Hinduism is the most tolerant as well as the most comprehensive of religions. It lays no claim to any monopoly of wisdom. Its authority is more a principle of continuity than a principle of exclusion. It abhors violent propaganda and forcible conversions. While it takes care to explain its position and absorbs willing followers, it never denounces other religions as false or evil. One of our minor (p.22) Upanishads says: ‘Cows have many colours, but the milk of all of them is white. Look upon teachers as cows, and knowledge as milk.’ Therefore, with us toleration is not simply a stroke of policy, but an article of faith. We look upon the whole world as a joint family. We welcome with open arms Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsees as our brethren. We study their scriptures as reverently as our own, and bow before their prophets. And, as for our own, and bow before their prophets. And, as for Buddhists and Jains, they are the flesh of our flesh and the bone of our bone.—pp.22-23
D: … the Sruti is the primary authority and that the Smrti, the Itihasa, the Purana, the Agama and the Darsana are secondary authorities. The aim of the latter is only to develop, illustrate and embody the principles of the Veda. The primary authority is for all time, but the secondary authorities vary from to age….—p.25
F: … dharanat dharmah—that is, Dharma is so called because it sustains society.—p.26
D: So, righteousness depends not upon external acts, but upon the inward spirit of the man who acts?
F: Quite so, my child. The Hindu scriptures often point out that inward righteousness is more important than external righteous acts and that ethical disposition is worth more than good conduct. Even our early lawgivers, who insist on the formal observance of the law and the performance of rites and ceremonies, distinctly say that ethical excellence is far more important than mere ceremonial purity. For instance Gautama says: ‘He who is sanctified by the forty sacraments but whose soul is destitute of the eight good qualities will not be united with God, nor does he reach heaven.’….—p.27
F: All wisely-directed rites, when they are not simply commemorative or symbolical, have corresponding virtues in view. For instance, an offering to the gods is a rite and it is intended to lead to self-sacrifice, which is a virtue. Almsgiving is laid down as a rite, and it is intended to lead to generosity, which is a virtue. Fasting is a rite, and it is intended to lead to self-control, which is a virtue…It is only when rituals are made ends in themselves, without leading to any virtues or to any chastening of the spirit, that they become dead-wood impending the growth of the soul.—p.28
F: …the end of man’s life is to become divine, and that all our religious activities should be directed with reference to that end. Therefore, the first ascent of the soul’s upward path consists is acquiring ethical purity….—p.28
F: …the distinctive marks of the religious spirit of India…are… (i) purity (sattva suddhi), ii) self-control (sama and dama), iii) detachment (vairagya) iv) truth (satyam) and v) non-violence (ahimsa).—p.29
F: …we should have had here, as in the West,. The shameful spectacle of even respectable men getting themselves drunk at times. Even among our masses, it is only after our contact with the West that the drink problem has assumed serious proportions. In the palmy days of Hindu civilization drinking was regarded as a degrading habit, and only the lowest classes indulged in it.—p.30
F: … Generally, the masses are a prey to the sins of the flesh, and the classes are a prey to the sins of the mind….—p.31
F: …A sannyasin is not one who has divested himself of all love, but one who has extended his love to all, and looks upon the (p.33) whole world as his family. The Gita says: ‘He who looks upon all like himself in pleasure and pain—he is considered, O Arjuna, a perfect yogin.’—pp.33-34
F: …what our religion enjoins by satyam is not mere truth-speaking, but our enthusiastic support of all correct views, just causes, right actions and beautiful ways of life. It is a virtue that opens the door to infinite progress in science, in art, in social justice and the higher morality of the future.—p.36
F: …We have certainly deteriorated from the position of our early lawgivers in the matter of altruism, social solidarity and the treatment of women. Dharma, therefore, depends for its progress on national prosperity and national independence.—p.36
F: …The Hindu scriptures teach us that the pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead and whatever sacrifices it may involve, is indispensable to the progress of man. Hence Hinduism has never opposed scientific progress. It has never opposed speculation in metaphysics or ethics. The last page of its ethics is not yet written, and will never be written. If only we have eyes to see, a new chapter is being added to the ethics of India in our own lifetime….—p.37
F: … all virtues are only forms of truth.—p.38
F: …Non-violence has two sides—negative side and a positive side. On the negative side, it means refraining from giving pain to any creature in any way. And, on the positive side, it means perfect love towards all creatures….—p.38
F: …Non-violence has to be practiced not only by individuals, but also by communities and nations and it has to be practiced in all spheres of life. That is why I say a new chapter is being added to Hindu ethics in our generation.—p.39
F: …the law of love is extended in the religions that arose in India even to the sub-human world. It is not limited to humanity as in the ethical codes of other countries.—p.39
F: Non-violence may fairly be called a national virtue in India. For, though it is practiced by small sections of the society, it has considerably influenced the Hindu community as a whole. Why, we may say that it has made the Hindus what they are to-day. Most of their virtues and vices could be traced to the ideal of non-violence. Their mildness, their hospitality, their humanity, their horror of bloodshed, their abhorrence of taking out life, their kindness to animals and their worship of the cow are all due to the ideal of non-violence. The pacific character of Hindu civilization is a result of the ideal. It is said that the Indian masses, in spite of their terrible poverty, are far less brutal than the masses in other countries. If that is a fact, it is due to the non-violence practiced by the classes.—p.40
F: …all individual virtues are grouped under the first three, namely, purity, self-control and detachment; and all social virtues are grouped under the last two, namely truth and ahimsa. In Hindu ethics, social virtues have a higher rank than individual virtues. And society, according to us, includes not only living men but also those who have gone before us, those who will come after us, all beings above us like the Gods and the Pitrs, and all beings below us like birds and beasts. We have our duties not only to our neighbours, but also to our ancestors, to our descendants, and to all living beings lower than man. I have already pointed out to you the significance of the five great sacrifices which a householder is enjoined to offer every day. Thus we see what a grand organic conception of society the Hindu sages had. It is a conception not limited by space or time. Nor is it confined to mankind.—p.41
F: Virtues, like rituals, are more or less in the nature of commandments proceeding from an external authority. It is very few who understand their reference to the goal of religious life. Moreover, their validity depends upon circumstances. It is not always easy to say at what point virtues cease to be virtues. Firmness easily passes into obstinacy, courage into foolhardiness, non-violence into cowardice, self-control into self-violence, and so on. Therefore, the cultivation of virtues may merely imply a mechanical obedience to moral commandments. This, of course, is necessary in the beginning, as rites and ceremonies are necessary. That is why our lawgivers lay down the rules of Dharma in an (p.42) apparently dogmatic manner. But soon, the moral man has to act for himself. He has to decide for himself what is true, what is just and what is virtuous in the given circumstances. He should no longer be hampered by rules and precepts. When he has thus acquired a virtuous disposition, he becomes independent in his judgment, and rarely goes wrong.—pp.42-43
F: A dharmatma or a virtuous personality is a surer standard than a rule of Dharma. The former is a living tree, the latter is only a dried fruit….—p.43
F: …According to Hinduism, the guide of right conduct are the scripture, usage, the example of saints and the inner self or conscience. For Manu says: ‘The Vedas are the source of the sacred law, next the Smrti and the conduct of those who understand the scriptures, and also the customs of holy men, and finally the satisfaction of the inner self.’ And Kalidasa, in a well-known and oft-quoted verse, says that the promptings of a pure heart are a sure guide in matters of doubt. Thus, by making the example of saints an authority, and by regarding the Vedic ideal of divine perfection as the standard of reference, Hinduism keeps its Dharma alive and its moral code flexible.—p.43
F: …all sins are divided into sins of thought, sins of word and sins of deed. For an evil thought or a harsh word is as much of the nature of sin as a wicked deed. This threefold division shows the refinement of the Hindu ethical writers who would not excuse even a harsh or obscene word, though it has no evil intention behind it, and thought it does not result in any cruel deed.—p.44
F: …all sins grouped under the three deadly sins of kama, krodha and lobha, or sensuality, hate and greed.
But all divisions are rather artificial. There is only one sin, though its forms are numberless. And that is self-centred desire. Sin is simply man’s opposition to God, or, more correctly, the opposition of the flesh to the spirit. A sinner is one who is out of harmony not only with the society around him, the laws of which he breaks, but also with the universal kingdom of spirit, of which he is a part…. (p.44) A sinner is a diseased limb of society, and a rebel from the kingdom of God. He sets his own will against that of the Creator. And, remember both are in himself. For man is both spirit and flesh….—pp.44-45
D: But how can a man of the world cease to take care of himself and his family, and act according to the law of universal love? If what you say is true, all of us are sinners?
F: Yes. All of us are sinners in a way. Every religion teachers us that. Hindu scriptures constantly say that existence is evil, and that Samsara exists only for sinners. Buddha equates life with dukha. Christianity teaches that all men are born sinners, and that the world is always antagonistic to God.—p.45
F:…Hinduism everywhere claims to show the way to permanent happiness. It teaches that immortal souls cannot be satisfied with mortal things. Therefore, it exhorts men not to put faith in the fleeting pleasures of the world, but in the joys of the spirit. There can be no beginning of religious life, unless we look upon the world as mainly evil. Dissatisfaction with the present life is the counterpart of the hope of a future life. All that most of us can do in this world is to acquire a little cleanliness in an ocean of dirt, a little righteousness in an ocean of sin, a little beauty in an ocean of ugliness, and a little love in an ocean of selfishness. If we do not shrink from the dirt, the sin, the ugliness and the selfishness of the world and denounce them as evil, we have no hope of progress. We all start from a self-centred life. But when our conception of self gradually expands so as to include not only the family, but also the community and the country to which we belong, we grow less and less sinful. As we learn to love and work for larger and larger units, our desires purity themselves and coalesce with the will of God. All moral progress lies in harmonizing our self-will with the will that rules the universe.—p. 46
F: We can get rid of our sins most easily by expanding our souls. This creates in us a virtuous disposition, and increases our spiritual power which burns up all sin. Every virtuous act, that is the outcome of our expanding love, adds to the hidden strength of the soul.—p.46
F: … Is it not necessary to stop every leak in a ship to save it from sinking? A particular sin is only a symptom of the disease of the soul. It is not simply a local inflammation which could be removed by an external application.—p.46
F: Penances and purificatory rites are prescribed only for those who have turned away from sin. They come in only after the change of heart. They are like external applications which only supplement, but can never supplant obedience to the general laws of health….
They are mark that the man is retracing his false steps. They serve to show his repentance and his public confession. The very word prayaschitta applied to such rites connotes a determination to change one’s heart and to atone for the sin. No great lawgiver ever admits that sin could be removed by means of distribution of gifts or observance of fasts and vigils, without any antecedent change of heart. Penances are only confirmatory rites. They confirm the soul’s purification. But the purification itself must come from within. No man can be saved from without. The health of the soul, like the health of the body, can only be evoked from within and never be communicated from without.—p.47
D: If a man allows sin to grow in his heart and tries to purify himself, what will happen?
F: One sin leads to another, the man’s spiritual resistance becomes weak, his nature is coarsened, and he sinks low in the scale of Samsara.—p.47
F: …God, according to Hinduism, does not sit in judgment over human actions on some future day, but here and now. His law is wrought into our natures. Just as nature is subject to unalterable laws, so is our moral nature also subject to law. Our characters and destinies shape themselves from life to life not according to arbitrary commands or whims, but according to organic laws.—p.48
D: But how is it that we do not remember anything of our past lives?
F: Because our conscious memory, which has for its seat our brain, is stored only with the impression acquired in this body. But beside our conscious mind, there is a huge unexplored subconscious region in which is stored up all our past experience. It is this that is responsible for the working of the law of Karma.—p.50
F: … Even the ordinary instincts may be said to be the result of the experience acquired in past lives.—p.50
F: …God is not a judge sitting in a remote heaven meting out punishments according to a penal code. He is an in-dwelling spirit whose law is wrought into our natures.—p.51
F: …The Gita in a suggestive metaphor calls the body a plot of ground. Every soul is a farmer to whom a plot of ground is given. The extent of the ground, the nature of its soil, the changes of weather to which it is exposed are all pre-determined. But the farmer is quite at liberty to till the ground, to manure it and to raise suitable crops, or to neglect it and allow it to run to waste. Similarly, there are elements of freedom, as well as elements that have been pre-determined, in all our lives. The law of karma recognizes both of these.—p.51
F: …Samcita karma is the name given to the accumulated karma of all the previous lives of a man. As a result of all his actions in the past, he acquires a certain character and certain tendencies. These are not unalterable like sex and parentage. It is possible to uproot evil habits by persistent effort, and plant good ones in their stead. Samcita karma, unlike Prarabdha, could be expiated by penances. And our scriptures say that unlike Prarabdha, it could be totally destroyed by Jnana….—p.52
F:….We are filled with hope when we know that we are the architects of our own fortunes and that it is never too late to mend we feel strong and secure. We are glad that we are not at the mercy of a capricious God.—p.54
F:…Our scriptures call Him [God] Karmadhyakshah—the Supervisor of the law. It is He that creates the world where each soul finds an environment suited to the tendencies it acquired in a former life. He is like the gardener who makes the seed-plots in his garden, and waters them. He helps the seeds to grow; but what they grow into depends upon their own nature.—p.54
F: …The law of gravity prevails for ever. But do we not interfere with it whenever we (p.54) go up a staircase? The law of karma simply states the conditions under which we have to work. It does not command us to work or not to work, any more than the law of gravity asks us to rise or to fall. Just as we erect buildings by interfering with gravity, so we can create future happiness for ourselves by ‘interfering’ with the law of karma. I have already said that, within certain limits, we can alter our destiny even in this life.—pp.54-55
D; If a man is suffering now for his bad karma in the past, why should we interfere and lessen his suffering?
F: If it is his bad karma that brought on the suffering, it is his good karma that brings him help. We are the instruments of one another’s destiny. And if we should fail to help the suffering man, somebody else would help him, and we should have to suffer for our hard-heartedness.—p.55
D: Is samsara then a judicial system by which every man rigorously gets his due?
F: Not exactly; you cannot, for instance, call a family a judicial system because every child gets its due from a just and loving father, who is always ready and eager to help. It would be more correct to call Samsara an educational system, where the master allows the pupils to educational system, where the master allows the pupils to educate themselves by seeing the natural consequences of their doings, while he is present everywhere to advise, to help and to save.—p.55
D: How does God help us, and save us?
F: If we surrender ourselves entirely to God, His grace can lift us away from the realm where the law of karma operates.—p.55
F: …the law operates only in the moral universe. But behind the moral universe there is a spiritual universe, where all differences are reconciled, all conflict between good and evil ceases and our sinful disposition melts away in the grace of God. There the law of karma, except for Prarabdha, has no place. For, as the physical world is subject to the law of causation, and the moral world is subject to the law of karma soothe spiritual world is subject to the law of love. The Gita teachers us that the spiritual progress of a man lies between two types of character—a Sakta and a Yukta. The former is one who works from attachment to the world. The latter is one who works from attachment to God….—p.56
F: Grace is the awakening of God in the soul. It is not something that operates from without. When we rouse ourselves to a sense of the in-dwelling Do, and act in accordance with Hid will, we are said to be in grace. We are said to have entered the world of God.—p.57
F: …when demands are made in the name of religion which outrage our moral sense and are inconsistent with the fundamental laws of humanity, as in the case of religious persecutions, it is clear that it is religion, and not morality, that must give way….—p.59
F: …Mere morality cannot abolish our separateness and sin.
D: Does religious life abolish them?
F: It does not exactly abolish them. It renders them ineffectual….—p.60
F: … The Vishnu Purana says: ‘The one and only God, Janardana, gets the designation of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva according as He creates, preserves or destroys. Of course, in popular religion these became separate gods with appropriate symbols, dwelling places, vehicles and followers.—p.62
F: …You should remember that Hinduism was developed under very complex conditions. Even in a small homogeneous community it is difficult to find a uniform religious formula that would satisfy the needs of all minds. What satisfies the young may not satisfy the old. What satisfies the labourer may not satisfy the scholar. It is nothing short of violence to thrust all minds into the same pigeon-hole of a formula. The difficulty is increased a thousand fold when the community is spread over a vast continent, and includes different races with varying levels of culture. Every one of the races that came within the fold of Hinduism had its own gods, its own rites and ceremonies and its own methods of worship. Hinduism had the difficult task of reconciling all these and finding their greatest common measure….—p.63
F: … It is marvelous how, amidst the conflicting claims of various tribal deities and the clashing interests of different religious units and the confusing details of local customs and ceremonies, the integrity of the philosophy of the Upanishads is maintained. Out of the process of assimilation that went on for centuries in the Hindu fold we have developed two characteristically Hindu doctrines of Ista Devata and of Adhikara.—p.63
F: …it must be admitted that all worship is at bottom idol-worship. Every form with which we invest the formless is an idol. The primitive man makes a scrawl of a head and arms on a piece of stone, and calls it God. The civilized man shuts his eyes and imagines a person with head and arms, and calls him God. Both are idols. The difference is not one of kind, but only one of degree. Hinduism has the courage to say so. And it has also the humanity to admit within its fold even those who cannot rise above grossly concrete forms of God.—p.64
F: …Hindu art is quite different from Greek art which gives us such wonderful figures of physical beauty. The former, at its best, is ideal, social and hieratic. You should clearly understand these three terms. Firstly, it is ideal because it never cares to imitate the objects of the world, but aims at representing ideal figures and ideal forms. It reverses the common maxim that art is imitation of life. It believes, on the other hand, that life should be an imitation of art. The Hindu artist, whether he is a sculptor or a painter, represents the ideal world to which the actual world has to transform itself. He gives concrete shape to the noble and gracious characters that the epic poet has conceived. He reveals to the eye of the flesh the transfigured nature which the yogin sees in a vision. He is not concerned with the sordid details of every day life, but with the great actions of the gods or the mighty forces of evil that involve the fortunes of a world. His art is not, therefore, pretty or imitative. It is not realistic or naturalistic….—p.65
F: …The dance of Siva, the slaying of Hiranyakasipu by Narasimha, the shaking of Kailasa by Ravana, the killing of Mahishasura by Durga, and the penance of Arjuna are represented in them. They are not events that take place on the human plane. They are symbolic of the great cosmic forces, terrific or beneficial, in comparison with which man and his little world sink into nothing. In such compositions there is little room for naturalism or pettiness or anatomical correctness or a delicate sense of proportion. What the critic has to pay attention to is the energy, the feeling, the expression, the bold imagination, and the underlying idea….—p.66
F: Apara–bhakti or Gauni–bhakti. Is theistic faith….—p.69
F: …Sridhara, the learned commentator of the Bhagavatapurana, says that there are as many as eighty-one degrees. But for all practical purposes, it is enough if we recognise three degrees—bahya–bhakti, ananya–bhakti and ekanta–bhakti.—p.69
F: … Bahya–bhakti, as the word itself indicates, is external bhakti….—p.69
F: Ananya means not another. Ananyha–bhakti (p.69) therefore, is the exclusive and passionate (rajasa) worship of one’s Ista–Devata in the heart. It is an intense monotheism….—pp.69-70
…The Hindu monotheist has always recognized that the gods whom others worship are only different forms of his own Ista–Devata.—p.70
F: Ekanta–bhakti is the purest (sattvika) type of bhakti, for here the worshipper loves God for His own sake, and not for His gifts. In the other two types God is worshipped generally for the sake of the gifts, not necessarily material, that come in the train of His grace….—p.70
F: … Hanuman [for] Dasya–bhava. …Sudama [for] Sakhya–bhava….(p.71)Yosada [for] Vatsalya–bhava…Sita or Rukmini [for] Kanta–bhava… Gopis like Radha [for] Madhura–bhava….—pp.71-72
D: What do you mean by the limitations of the form?
F: What I mean is that Dasya–bhava, which resembles the love of the servant to the master, should not degenerate into servility. Sakhya–bhava, which resembles the love of the friend to the friend, should not degenerate into familiarity. Vatsalya–bhava, which resembles the love of the parent to the child, should not degenerate into sentimentality. Kanta–bhava which resembles the love of the wife to the husband, should not degenerate into domesticity. And finally Madhura–bhava, which resembles the love of the beloved to the lover, should not degenerate into sensuality….—p.72
F: …While preaching toleration towards all types of bhakti, Hindu scriptures never encourage mudha–bhakti or blind faith. A devotee, on the other hand, is expected to have an open mind and ever pray for light, so that he may possess more and more adequate conceptions of God. He should never forget that every human conception of God is imperfect. Therefore, he should ceaselessly try to make his own conception less and less imperfect. For this purpose it is necessary that he should carefully read the religious literature of his country and the great scriptures of the world, and keep himself abreast of the religious thought of his generation….—p.75
F: Many people are apt to think that mere religious knowledge will save them. Religious knowledge is one thing, and religious experience is another. It is quite possible that you may learn all the technicalities of the Vedanta philosophy without ever possessing any spirituality. You may be an eminent theologian explaining to a wondering multitude all (p.75) the secrets of the kingdom of God. But if your heart has never been visited by the Divine Person, you are only a spy in the kingdom, and not a loyal citizen. If you have only religious knowledge you are like a man who has only one leg. With one leg you cannot even stand secure. Much less, therefore, can you walk to your goal.—pp.75-76
F: The word ‘yoga’ is used in several different senses in our scriptures. It is used in the sense of power, prosperity, rule, devotion, endeavour, union and so on….—p.76
F: …it is only for purposes of instruction that we divide and subdivide the sadhanas, as we divide and subdivide virtues. As moral life is one, so is religious life. There is only one way, as there is only one God. But there are several stages in it, and hence we have several names. All of them are more or less arbitrary, and exist only in our imaginations. Begin to lead a religious life, and you will be able, from your own experience, to add to or subtract from the lists of sadhanas given by the old masters. It is the spirit behind their instructions that we have to imbibe, and not the minute and indistinguishable details. The author of the Sandilya–sutras, after admitting that the subsidiary forms of devotion have to be adapted according to time and necessity, plainly says: ‘Isvara–tusterekopibali’, that is, when God is pleased even one of the means is effectual. Therefore there is only one thing that is indispensable, and that is the grace of the Lord. You may practise all the external sadhanas and all the internal sadhanas without exception, you may steep yourself in religious literature and you may acquire the reputation of being a pious man. But all these are of no avail without the grace of God. There is an oft-quoted verse in the Upanishads which runs thus: ‘Not by study, not by intelligence and not by much learning is this Atman to be obtained. It can be obtained only by him (p.79) whom it chooses. To such a one the Atman reveals its true nature.’ This does not mean that grace is capricious. It only means that God is a searcher of hearts. We can deceive the world, we can deceive ourselves, but we can never deceive Him. He sees through all our studies, our clever arguments and our pious poses. He sees what sincerity there is in our hearts, and sends His grace accordingly.—pp.79-80
F: … Nothing kills the spirit of religion so effectively as a mechanical observance of forms through which men’s devotions expressed themselves in a bygone age. We should never forget that God endures for ever, but that gods are subject to change and decay. To worship the dead gods is an insult to God. A true bhakta, therefore, should be able to rise above the forms from which the spirit has departed. But, at the same time, he should claim no freedom from the rules and regulations which continue to serve a spiritual purpose. He should not easily bring himself to believe that he is advanced enough to be a law unto himself. He should not set a bad example to his unenlightened fellowmen by setting at nought the forms of established religion. The Gita says: ‘Let no enlightened man unsettle the minds of ignorant men who are attached to their work. Himself doing all works with faith, he should make others do as well.’ If every beginner in religious life tries to discard the letter of the law in the name of the spirit, we shall have chaos in religion. And it is not good for the devotee either. For very often when the grace of God refuses to come into his consciousness, he has to fall back only on the rests and props of religion, namely, the temple, the offering, the ceremony, the book of devotion, etc.—p. 83
F: …An inexperienced devotee is often tempted to grow impatient when his devotions seem to lead him nowhere, when God hides His head, as it were, and a sense of weariness overwhelms him. Sometimes he has to pass through long stretches of time when religion seems to be a huge self-deception, and the spirit of cynicism makes grimaces at all his attempts at prayer. Sometimes even horrible, unspeakable sins, which normal humanity has outgrown, seem to be perilously near his soul. All the years of illumination, (p.83) of pious worship and the gracious presence seem to be rolled away in a moment, and in their place he has only despair and misery. The world, of course, goes on as usual. But to him it is a hard and petrified world with no meaning or purpose. He cannot pray. He cannot meditate. Even the favourite verses of his book of devotion become dull and monotonous with wearisome repetitions. These are moments which test the strength of a true bhakta.
He should hold on faithfully to his God in the gloom. He should never question His will, nor entertain the thought that he did not deserve this treatment. Many a man in this world would be religious, if religion always meant unclouded happiness. Religion is unclouded happiness in the end, when the goal is reached….—pp.83-84
F: ‘Anthropomorphic’ means ‘having human form.;….(p.94) We should fearlessly admit that, after all, theism is only a glorified anthropomorphism. That is why our Hindu sages would not stop at this halfway house, but go forward and try to see God as He is, and not simply as He is to us.—pp.94-95
F: …we are qualified only to speak of what the Absolute is not, but not of what it is….—p.95
F: When we speak of Him as distinct from the world we generally use the term God or Isvara. But when we speak of Him as including everything, we use the term the Absolute or Brahman.—p.97
F: …It is Pantheism, and not Hinduism, that identifies God with the universe.—p.100
F: …It is a half-truth like Deism, another philosophic theory, that assumes that the Creator is entirely outside His creation. Pantheism emphasizes the immanence of God to the exclusion of His transcendence, while Deism emphasizes the transcendence (p.100) of God to the exclusion of His immanence. Hinduism is neither Pantheism nor Deism. According to it, God is both transcendent and immanent. He is in the world and also beyond it. He is its material cause as well its efficient cause. He is the clay as well as the potter. Hence Hindu scriptures compare the world to a spider’s web, the threads of which come out of the spider itself. But the web is not the spider. Similarly the world is not God. The finite manifests the infinite, but it does not manifest the whole of the infinite. The God of the Gita says that the whole universe is sustained by a part of Himself, and that it lives in Him, and not He in it. Also, while admitting that all things are divine, Hinduism recognizes that some things reveal God more than others. A plant is more divine than a mineral, an animal is more divine than a plant, a man is more divine than an animal, and a good man is more divine than a bad man. Thus from the lowest atom of dust to the highest Isvara, all are in God, but all are not equally divine.—pp.100-101
D: Do you mean to say, then, that neither the whole of the Absolute nor a part of the Absolute has become the world?
F: Yes. For if we say it is the whole, then the Absolute becomes the world, and all our search for God beyond this finite world becomes futile. If we say it is the part, then we apply to the Absolute the relation of whole and part which is inapplicable to it.—p.101
F: Various theories of creation have been put forward by different schools of Indian thought.
The most important of them are Arambha–vada, Parinama–vada and Vivarta–vada.
The theory of the Nyaya–Vaisesika school of philosophers is known as arambha–vada. According to it, at the beginning of a kalpa, invisible and intangible atoms of different orders, under the influence of the will of God and the destiny of souls, unite to form the various objects of the world, differing in their qualities from the atoms themselves. Thus the effect is entirely different from the cause. It comes into being anew, as a cloth comes into being anew when the threads are put together. The atoms combine with one another and continue in combination giving rise to the various objects of the world for some time, and then they separate so that the whole effect collapses. This process of creation and destruction goes on till the time of mahapralaya or final dissolution. Such is their theory.
The theory of the Samkhya school is known as parinama–vada. It is a theory of evolution. According to this, the universe consists of two eternal realities, one conscious and the other unconscious. The former is called Purusa and the latter Pradhana. There is an infinite number of Purusas, all independent of one another and devoid of any qualities. They are the silent spectators of the various modifications of Pradhana.—p.102
…The Samkhya theory is an improvement on that of the Nyaya–Vaisesika. For it postulates only two ultimate realities. The Vaisesika system, by the way, is in itself an improvement on Buddhistic nihilism, which declares that nothing is real or permanent. Again, while according to the Nyaya theory, as we have seen, the effect is different from the cause, according to the Samkhya theory the effect is inherent in the cause. It is only made manifest by evolution, as oil is made manifest when the oil-seed is pressed.—p.103
This [vivarta–vada] is a theory of appearance and reality. According to some schools of Vedanta, the cause, without undergoing any change in itself, produces the effect. Threads have to be woven together to produce a cloth. Oil-seeds have to be pressed together for oil to come out. In both these cases the cause undergoes a change. So these analogies will not do to explain creation in which the Creator remains unaffected by the (p.103) process. Therefore some philosophers use the well-known figures of a rope appearing as a snake in the dark, a pillar as a ghost, a piece of shell as silver, and a sandy desert as a mirage. The rope, the pillar, the shell, and the desert are realities, while the snake, the ghost, the silver and the mirage are only appearances. The different illustrations used are intended to indicate the dependence of the effect upon the cause, and, at the same time, the changelessness of the cause….—pp.103-04
F: …The systems of Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka and Vallabha teach that the world is real, but dependent on God in one way or another. Thus one of the two categories is made subordinate to other. Samkara goes a step further. He does not deny the reality of the world, as he is often supposed to do….—p.105
F: …Man as man can never know God. He should transcend his upadhis and become divine to know the Divine Being.—p.107
F: …Accordingly, as on the question of the reality of the world, we have here also a higher view and a lower view. The lower view, namely that there are separate individual souls, is not a false view. It is only a partial view. It gives one aspect of the truth, not the whole truth. Error comes in only when we mistake what is relatively real for what is absolutely real.—p.109
F: The Aitareya Upanishad of the Rig Veda says, ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ or ‘Intelligence is Brahman’. The Brahadaranyaka Upanishad of the Yajur Veda says, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ or ‘I am Brahman’. The Chandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda says, ‘Tatvamasi’ or ‘Thou art that’. And lastly the Atharva–Veda says, ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ or ‘This self is Brahman’.—p.110
F: It is a mistake to suppose that the soul is in the body. On the other hand it is truer to say that the body is in the soul. The body is enveloped and pervaded by the soul which is infinite, all pervading and eternal. The body is like a vessel, and the soul is like the space within it and without it. When the vessel is moved from place to place, the space within it is not moved. When the contents of the vessel are boiled, the space or ether in it is not boiled. Similarly, there is in us something uncreated, something higher than all our faculties, something untouched by sin or suffering. The Gita, quoting from Kathopanishad, says: ‘It is said that the senses are great, but greater than the senses is the mind, and greater than the mind is the understanding, but what is even greater than the understanding is He’.—p.110
F: Birth is only the union of the soul with the body, and death the separation from it. The soul n itself is eternal. It is not born, nor does it die.—p.110
F: It cannot become one with the universal soul till all its upadhis are removed. And I have already said that death removes only one of the upadhis, namely, gross body. But there is still the subtle body, and there is the acquired merit or demerit which determines its next birth.
They are removed only when the soul qualifies itself for moksa or salvation.—
D: You say that the soul is ultimately identical with God. What new qualifications has it to acquire?
F: The soul is identical with God. But it is subject to upadhis on account of its avidya. These prevent it from realizing its identity. The soul need not, strictly speaking, acquire new qualifications. It has only to remove its disqualifications. For salvation, being of the nature of eternity, is not something that is made, but something that is only realized.
D: How is this avidya removed?
F: It is removed by vidya or jnana….—p.111
F: …Samkara, in a famous passage in his Stra–Bhasya, gives us a hint of his own personal experience in this matter. He says: ‘It is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of a Brahmavit, or one who has realized Brahman, continues to exist for some time or not. For how can a man contest another’s heartfelt conviction that he has realized Brahman although he continues to have a bodily existence?—p.114
F: … a Jivanmukta is a perfect Yogin….—p.114
F: According to Ramanuja, the Absolute is not impersonal but a personality endowed with all the glorious qualities we know of, such as knowledge, power and love. So God is saguna only, and no nirgua. The Vedic texts, which deny qualities to Him, should be interpreted as meaning that He has no such lower qualities as sorrow, change, mortality etc. The difference that is necessary for the idea of the personality of God exists in Himself. For He has two inseparable prakaras or modes, namely the world and souls. These are related to Him, as the body is related to the soul. They have no existence apart from Him. They inhere in Him as attributes in a substance. But they have two phases—the subtle phase and the manifest phase, according as God is in His karana–avastha i.e. causal state, or karya–avastha i.e. effected state. The former is the state before creation, and the latter after creation.
Creation is an act of God by which souls and matter undergo transformations. Matter is fundamentally real and it undergoes a real parinama or evolution, and not simply an apparent variation. Even after pralaya or dissolution matter exists, as in the beginning, in a subtle state as the prakara of God. Therefore it is eternal, though ever dependent.
The soul is a higher prakara of God than matter, because it is a conscious entity. It is also eternally real and eternally distinct from God and eternally dependent on Him. It is as uncreated as matter, creation only meaning in this case the expansion of intelligence and the acquisition of a material body according to the degree of merit acquired in a previous existence. Moreover the soul is ever atomic (anu) in size (p.116) dwelling in the heart like a point of light and therefore distinct from God who is all-pervasive (vibhu). There are three classes of souls—nitya, mukta and baddha. To the first class belong those who are eternally free and who live with God in Vaikuntha, His supreme abode. To the second class belong those who were once subject to samsara but who have now acquired salvation and live with God. And to the third class belong those who are still in the meshes of samsara and who are striving to be saved.
Salvation can be obtained only by the grace of God responding to the call of bhakti and prapatti or self-surrender on the part of the worshipper. Karma and jnana are only means to bhakti. The released souls attain to the nature of God and never lose their individuality, they are only released from samsara. And this release comes only after quitting the body, for, according to Ramanuja, there is no such thing as Jivanmukti.—pp.116-17
F: From the brief account of the Visistadvaita that I have just now given, you will see it differs from the Advaita in the following points:
- To Ramanuja God is always personal endowed with various perfections. But to Samkara God is both personal and supra-personal. In relation to the world He is conceived as being endowed with various perfections, but in Himself He is really different from anything we can conceive.
- To Ramanuja the world is absolutely real, being an inseparable prakara or mode of God. But to Samkara the world is only relatively real. It is real to the individual soul only so long as its individuality lasts.(p.117)
- To Ramanuja the jiva or individual soul is also absolutely real and eternally distinct from God, though God, being omnipresent, dwells in it. But to Samkara, on the other hand, the jiva is only relatively real, its individuality lasting only so long as it is subject to upadhis or limiting conditions.
- To Ramanuja moksa is freedom from samsara. But to Samkara it is freedom not only from samsara but also from exclusive individuality and its corollary, the conception of a phenomenal world.
- To Ramanuja karma and jnana are only means to bhakti which gives moksa. But to Samkara karma and bhakti are means to jnana which is moksa.—pp.117-18
F: Madhva differs from Ramanuja in the following points:
- Madhva does not admit that the world is the body (p.118) of God. According to him God is only the efficient cause of the world, and not the material cause. The distinction between God and the world of matter and souls is absolute and unqualified. That is why his system is called Dvaita or dualism. Whereas Samkara’s system which denies any such ultimate distinction is called Advaita or monism; and Ramanuja’s system, which maintains the distinction but also emphasizes the oneness of the Absolute, is called Visistadvaita or qualified monism.
- Madhva holds that, though every atom of space in the universe is filled with jivas, no two jivas are alike in character. They are essentially different from one another and belong to different grades even in their enjoyment of bliss after salvation.
- Madhva further classified the souls that are still bound to the wheel of samsara into three classes: (i) those who, being of Sattvika nature, are pre-ordained for salvation; (ii) those who, being of Rajasa nature, are pre-ordained to wander for all time in the labyrinth of Samsara; (iii) and those who, being of Tamasa nature, are pre-ordained to suffer in eternal darkness.
- Madhva holds that souls cannot get salvation except through a mediator who gives them the saving knowledge. This mediator is Vayu, the son of Vishnu.
- But; … these are rather subtle differences, which are bound to arise in the bosom of a religion which is singularly free from rigid dogmas and which encourages rather than discourages freedom of opinion. They are of little practical importance. They do not stand in the way of men perfecting their lives through righteousness, love and worship in accordance with the main teaching of our (p.119) scriptures. It is therefore enough for you to confine yourself to matters on which all our teachers are agreed.
D: Will you kindly tell me what the points are on which all are agreed?
F: All Hindu religious teachers are agreed in thinking:
- That the spiritual experience embodied in the Sruti is our ultimate authority in religion, and not mere individual reason;
- That God is one though He has many names and forms, and that He is an ineffable perfection;
- That all men find themselves in this life in the toils of samsara in accordance with their own past karma;
- That there is a triple path consisting of karma, bhakti and jnana which can lead men out of samsara to the perfection of God;
- That he who would be saved should cultivate the virtues of purity, self-control, detachment, truth and ahimsa in their various forms and become a Dharmatma;
- That he has further to worship his Ishta–devata according to his adhikara, and, by every means in his power, acquire the grace of God;
- And that his salvation consists in his being free from the cycle of births and deaths and gaining entrance into the world of spirit.
These are things that really matter. They are the teachings that fill our lives with hope and give a meaning and content to all our struggles here against ignorance and sin.—pp.119-20
F: …Hinduism is neither fatalism nor pessimism, neither asceticism nor quietism, neither agnosticism, nor pantheism, neither illusionism nor mere polytheism, as some of its hasty critics have represented it to be. It is a synthesis of all types of religious experience, from the highest to the lowest. It is a whole and complete view of life. That is why it has stood like a rock all these thousands of years and survived the attacks of the followers of all the other great religions of the world….—p.121
Leave a Reply