In a previous article, I said, “When it comes to others’ faith and scripture(s), without knowing the textual, historical, and theological contexts, giving one’s own interpretation will misrepresent the tenets of that faith” (see Our view on Other’s faith).
But this view should not be limited only to the faith and scriptures of other faiths. In nearly every faith, their scripture is interpreted in such a way that one can find an endorsement for a certain ideology. However, it may “…prevail to some degree over any rigid fidelity to commentatorial tradition” (p. 100). This fact is brought out by Mark Singleton (Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice, New York, Oxford, 2010) in the life and teaching of Swami Vivekananda:
“Certainly, Vivekananda was outspoken in his belief in the necessity of physical culture for Indian youth and at times insisted on its sequential priority over mental and spiritual development, such as in the following dialogue recorded in 1897:
Swamiji: How will you struggle with the mind unless the physique is strong? Do you deserve to be called men any longer—the highest evolution in the world? First, build up your physique. Then only you can get control over the mind… ‘This Self is not to be attained by the weak’ (Katha Upanisad, 1.ii.23)” (Conversations and Dialogues VIII. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Calcutta; Advaita Ashram, vol. 7, pp. 151-157, 1992 [1897]: 155).
It is difficult to see how Vivekananda extracts his translation from this Upanishad, but his message is clear: the development of bodily strength is of the utmost importance for the spiritual evolution of the modern Hindu. It is the urgency of this task, indeed, that seems to be sufficient motive for his innovative reading of traditional Hindu scripture. The exchange that follows this statement indeed suggests that Vivekananda is well aware of the departure he is making from orthodox interpretation:
Disciple: But, sir, the commentator (Shankara) has interpreted the word “weak” to mean “devoid of Brahmacharya or continence.”
Swamiji: Let him. I say “the physically weak are unfit for the realization of the Self” (ibid. [1897]: 155-156).
This cavalier approach to interpretation suggests that the exigencies of the age prevail to some degree over any rigid fidelity to commentatorial tradition. Vivekananda requires scriptural endorsement for his promotion of physical culture and seems determined to find it in this verse….—p. 100.
Of course, this is not the only example of the idealistic interpretation by Swami Vivekananda on many doctrines of Hinduism as the demands of his time and mission overrule traditional interpretation for his ideology. Anantanand Rambachan’s book, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas (Sri Satguru Publications, A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi, 1995), clearly demonstrates this fact.
It is interesting to note that every ideology is a kind of systematization of conflicting interests among various groups, which the elites manage to present in a coded message. To get recognition, they will often seek endorsement from the dominant worldview of a particular people group.
For example, if a Gandhian wants to promote a particular ideology based on Gandhian principles, naturally she will, and has to, turn to the Collected Works of Gandhiji. Similarly, others who want to promote a particular ideology will seek endorsement from religious texts to get the approval of religious people.
There is nothing wrong with this; ideologists are a part of society and must articulate their views using the worldview of the common people if they want to promote them. However, common people may not have the time and interest to note the subtle differences between context and interpretation. Those who want to teach or promote a particular kind of ideology should be reasonable while walking the tightrope between context and interpretation.
One of the best examples that come to my mind is the Bhagavad Gita. Though the Gita never attempts to promote or protect casteism, the overall context of the Gita is about the preservation of varnashrama dharma. So anyone who wants to teach or learn the message of the Gita should never forget its grey background.
Of course, those who want to promote a particular view, like Bhakti, Karma, or Jnana, can present the text and interpretation accordingly. But a careful student of the Gita should try to understand this too in the overall context of varnashrama dharma. For example, in the charama shloka of the Gita (18:66: “Abandoning all dharma, take refuge in me alone. I shall liberate you from all sins; don’t grieve”), where Krishna tells Arjuna to surrender all kinds of dharma and take refuge in him, we should remember that the word “dharma” is not some kind of objective principle but also includes the varnashrama dharma of Arjuna. Viz., if he is not clear and still confused after listening to all the teachings, he can and should surrender his dharma as a Kshatriya and engage in the war, as Krishna is capable of removing any kind of sin that will come out of it.
Those who want to promote “bhakti” as the central teaching of the Gita take “refuge” in this shloka, pointing to the climax of bhakti in saranagati, “taking refuge at the feet of the Lord.” As Swami Vivekananda “found” what he needed in the Upanishad, anyone who wants to promote a particular doctrine (karma, jnana, or bhakti) can easily find their shloka in the Gita. But this could be done at the expense of the overall teaching of the Gita about preserving the varnashrama dharma.
Individual votaries have every right to find solace in the religious text of their faith for their needs. But those who take up the dharma of teaching, and particularly those engaged in promoting a particular ideology, should be sensible enough to keep the balance between context and interpretation. Simply finding some text to promote a particular ideology out of the context of the text may fulfill the demands of their time but will be questioned by a sincere student of scripture.
The phrase “Let him” used by Swami Vivekananda in this dialogue is important for me. Though he knows his interpretation violates the Advaitic traditional interpretation, he felt that he had the right to promote his view. This is possible because the Hindu worldview accommodates two contradicting views side by side and gives recognition to both. This accommodative pluralism is the secret to the survival of Hinduism amidst all kinds of onslaughts on it.
20-7-15
Endnotes
1. naayam aatmaa pravacanena labhyo na medhayaa na bahunaa srutena/yam evaisa vrnute tena labhyas tasyaisa aatmaa vrnute tanuum svaam. Olivelle (P.Upanisads. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) translates this as “This self cannot be grasped / by teachings or by intelligence, / or even by great learning. / Only the man he chooses can grasp him, / whose body this self chooses as his own.” (From the original text)
Leave a Reply