Some Westerners are perplexed when they receive seemingly contradictory answers to their questions about Hinduism from different Hindus. This confusion intensifies when they pose these questions to Hindus living in the West, especially those who are part of elite academic circles. However, when they visit India and ask the same questions to Hindus there, they are overwhelmed by the stark contrast between Hindus in India and those in the West.
A fundamental worldview in Hinduism is what I call “pluralistic relativism” (or “relativistic pluralism”). When it comes to matters of religion, spirituality, or ritual, Hindus often provide answers based more on personal experience than on any formal doctrine. Moreover, the response varies depending on who is being asked. When answering questions from Westerners, many Hindus assume the role of a guru (teacher) and go beyond their personal experiences to present a broader understanding of Hinduism, often venturing into unfamiliar doctrinal territory.
The primary difference between a Hindu and a non-Hindu (especially Westerners influenced by a Christian worldview) is this: compared to the pluralistic relativism inherent in Indian culture, the Western worldview is often shaped by a notion of “one book, one faith, one church, one religion,” rooted in Christianity. Even within this seemingly unified worldview, however, there are vast differences in cultural, social, ritualistic, and spiritual practices. Therefore, when Westerners ask questions about religion, they often seek answers from a doctrinal standpoint. In contrast, most Hindus, even the educated ones, tend to respond based on personal experience rather than doctrinal teachings. Their answers are often shaped by individual perspectives, rather than adhering to any specific tradition.
Westerners, even secular ones without any particular religious affiliation, tend to analyze religious concepts through a “doctrinal” lens, heavily influenced by the Bible. For example, when a Westerner asks about concepts like rebirth, moksha, sin, or salvation, their understanding is usually shaped by biblical doctrine, whether they believe in it or not. On the other hand, the average Hindu, who may not be well-versed in the doctrinal aspects of their particular sect (sampradaya), will offer a general response based on what they’ve learned from others or from their own personal experiences. It is not uncommon for such answers to include doctrinal terms that might even contradict Hindu scriptures. This becomes more complex when certain Hindu terms like “bhakti,” “moksha,” “maya,” and “darshan” are used, as they have both popular meanings and technical, doctrinal meanings.
Take the term “darshan,” for example. When a Hindu says they went to the temple for the “darshan” of the deity, a non-Hindu might assume they went to see the “idol” of their god. But for the Hindu, it is not merely about seeing an idol—it is about seeing their god. Moreover, there is an additional layer to this interaction: the belief that when the devotee sees the god, the god also sees the devotee. Darshan is a reciprocal experience, where both the devotee and the deity engage in a form of eye-to-eye communication. This is why Hindu deities often have large, prominent eyes, sometimes highlighted with gold or silver, to assure the devotee that they are being seen by their god. Yet, the same term, “darshan,” is also used to describe the six schools of Hindu philosophy (shad-darshan), where it means “a particular point of view” rather than a literal vision.
This variation in meaning presents a challenge, especially when engaging in interreligious dialogue. I once encountered this while walking with a retired school headmaster. When he asked about the subject of my writing, I mentioned religion, and he responded by saying, “So, you are writing about philosophy.” However, as a student of scriptures, I hesitated to fully agree with him. Indian “darshan” is sometimes translated as “philosophy,” but the term carries different connotations in Indian tradition. In an attempt to clarify, I explained the difference between the Western notion of philosophy and what “darshan” means in our tradition. However, I realized my explanation did not fully resonate with him, as his understanding was more “oral” than “academic.”
For example, one regional folk song says: “If you understand life clearly, it is ‘siddhanta’; if you don’t, it is ‘vedanta.’” While “siddhanta” technically means “doctrine,” in popular usage, it refers to something that is very clear. “Vedanta,” meanwhile, refers to the end of the Vedic scriptures (the Upanishads), but in popular usage, it is associated with complex philosophical concepts that are difficult for the common person to understand. The folk song uses “vedanta” in this sense, referring to something beyond ordinary comprehension.
So, how does one know exactly what Hinduism teaches on certain issues? The answer is complex. The contradictions and confusions that non-Hindus encounter can be resolved by understanding the diverse approaches Hindus take to religion. There is “religious Hinduism,” “cultural Hinduism,” “social Hinduism,” “spiritual Hinduism,” and “ritual Hinduism”—all of which overlap. While this diversity exists in other faiths (like Christianity and Islam), Hinduism’s strength lies in its open embrace of pluralistic relativism rather than emphasizing a single, exclusive theory.
Dayanand
Mathigiri, February 15, 2007
6:30 PM
Leave a Reply