Universalism

As human beings, we share basic instincts like hunger and procreation, yet thankfully, we differ in many areas. These differences are what could truly be termed “universal” in their nature and scope. What unites us as one species is not as important as what sustains that basic unity. The true test of universalism lies in how we maintain that unity despite our diversity.

Imagine a family, community, society, nation, or even the world, where everyone is the same—eating the same food, following the same habits, practicing the same culture, and speaking the same language. Life would be monotonous. However, these differences shouldn’t divide us or create an “otherness” between people. On the contrary, diversity enriches us all by allowing us to contribute to each other in countless ways.

This is why we must challenge any claim that a single system offers complete solutions for our existence. Similarly, those who resist adopting new values and ideas from others should be questioned. At the same time, we should oppose any attempts to impose a particular worldview or system in the name of creating universalism.

We often hear phrases like “in this changing world,” “in the modern era,” or “with information at our fingertips, the world is now a global village,” as if human societies have always existed in isolated, unchanging pockets. But change and continuity have been the norm for individuals, families, communities, and nations throughout history. Old ideas and ideals serve as a foundation, while individuals and groups continually add new insights, either through their own innovation or by learning from others. This ongoing process of change is what defines civilization. Though we can trace back the origins of many practices and values, new ideas are constantly being welcomed and incorporated, with the old and new shaping each other. It is this dynamic process of change, which remains constant, that should be called universalism—embodied in the saying, “change is the only constant.”

No matter how we describe our existence, change is inevitable. In some areas, it may be swift and visible, while in others, it may be slow and subtle. Attempts to impose uniformity in the name of any ideology are bound to fail, though they may temporarily succeed for various reasons. Those who contribute to this change should avoid a hegemonic mindset, and those who receive new ideas should not feel inferior. Without mutual exchange, no one can thrive. In this sense, no one is inherently superior. Both the giver and the receiver are equal, provided they understand each other’s needs. Without one, the other cannot exist.

The following points but long would help us to understand how FOR this Universalism of Change and Continuity’ India stands as the best case study as says, Clothey, ‘… India, in short, is a microcosm of the modern world, lunging forward toward still unattained possibilities while selectively trying to retain elements of its storied past.’ p. 195

Though bit long I would prefer to give as it than giving my summary on this points from: Fred W. Clothey, Religion in India: A Historical Introduction, New York, Routledge, 2006

The religious landscape of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century India was marked by a wide range of activity.  There was reawakening and rediscovery of some elements from a perceived past; accommodation, confrontation, and negotiation between communities in a pluralistic landscape; the rearticulation of Hindu and/or Muslim identities; the resurgence of the vernacular sensibilities at the same time as there was increased national and global consciousness; the use of religion for political purpose; the increased visibility of folk practice and its intermingling with neo-classical developments, and a resurgence of pietism and popular religion. It was, in short, a century of transition that set the stage for the contemporary period and, in the process, illustrated the religious options available to a globe facing similar dynamics in the twenty-first century.—p. 189

As for religion, it is alive and very visible in India today. Despite predictions by social scientists that forces of modernization, globalization, secularization, and economic development would consign religion to India’s trash bin, in fact the reverse has been true: not only is religion alive, it has been resurgent in many corners of the subcontinent. In fact, it may be not so much despite these kind currents, but because of them that religion is resurgent.—p. 195 [India]

…one may be “global” and Indian, global and ethnic at the same time, or “global” in one context and “ethnic” in in another. Furthermore, “globalization” has spawned resistance and renew interest in local and national values. We noted in the last chapter how patterns that might be called “global.” or at least originating outside India, nonetheless, led to a rebirth of Indian self-consciousness, including a resurgence of religion.

Similarly, “modernization” is not the opposite of “tradition” as if “tradition” stood for some monolithic past that was unchanging in contrast to some dynamic “modern era.” In fact, we have noticed how India’s past has been constantly changing. Each new moment obviously reflects its own time and place, yet the “past” is perceived and celebrated selectively. People tend to reclaim a past, reinterpret it, perceiving it in terms that suit their own moment. This is the nature of “tradition”: people constantly reconstruct it based on their perceptions of what must have been. Hence, in India today, new religious movements are said to be consistent with the Vedic past or with agamic practice. Such claims have the character of myth: the present is read into the past. Such perceptions of the past, often glorified, provide a sense of rootedness and identity….-p. 196

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, February 2, 2011.