|
|
|
|
|
||
Grounds of Inter Religious Spirituality in Indian Culture
- N. Muthumohan
Introduction
Multiplicity of religions in almost all countries has become a contemporary historical fact. Not a single country could be named today as a country of mono-religion. Even when the religious leaders have not yet recognized this fact adequately and nourish the belief that their own religion would win over the world one day, the political leaders have started acknowledging the multiplicity of religions as the reality. Otherwise, the occurring socio-political events are insistently compelling the political leaders to accept this fact.
The democratic principle of the ‘rule of the majority’ appears inadequate to respond to the situation of majority and minority religions hosted in each and every country. The ‘Rule of the majority’ is supposed to gradually yield before Multiculturalism as a social mindset. The mono-religious consciousness of the religious leaders often resists the fact of multiplicity under the assumption that recognition of multiplicity of religions might imply weakness of faith in their own respective religions.
One of my priest-friends who traveled to Rome and wanted to register himself on the theme of Postmodern multiplicity for his Doctorate in the Gregorian University, encountered a question from the senior faculty of the University, “How do you reconcile your faith in Christian Monotheism with your interest in Postmodernism?” Despite this question, I know that so many Christian scholars are engaged intensely in inter-religious activities. I know that the budgets of the City-councils of UK and Canada include allotments of expenditures for inter-religious activities. In such a context, it is worthwhile to look into the history of religions and cull out the sources of inter-religious spirituality with the aim of making it known and strengthening such moments. The present paper is mostly situated in Indian context as the author hopes that he is versed better in Indian things. Even with its limited scope, it may stimulate similar papers in other cultures.
Philosophical Pluralism as a source of Inter-religious Spirituality
In the present context of Postmodernism, the Pluralistic philosophies in the history can offer us a persuasive platform to discuss and substantiate the theme of multiplicity of religions. I recall the philosophies of atomism of Democritus in ancient Greece, of monads of Leibniz in modern Europe and of Critical Realists in more recent West. Scholars indicate that there existed a distinct tradition of pluralism in ancient Greece. “The world cannot be one stuff. By this line of reasoning there arose the school of Pluralists. If corporeal monism implies the solid immobility of Being, there must, they (the Pluralists) thought, be something wrong with corporeal monism.
Pluralism did not arise in a vacuum, but rather it was inevitable among men (sic) who had inherited this particular tradition.” [1] Democritus conceived atoms and emptiness to be the ultimate particles of the world-reality, broadly advocating the pluralistic tradition of Greece. Leibniz perceived the ideational monads to be the elementary beings out of which the edifice of the world comes into being. “ Leibniz calls these spiritual substances monads and the universe consists of an infinite number of them, distinguished from one another, not by being at different places, but by having different perceptions.” [2]
The European Empiricism of 17th century too offers another clear case of elementary sensations as the foundational points of all human perceptions and conceptions of the world. In a sense, the Empiricist idea of elementary sensations stands behind the concept of freedom as it has been understood in the European political theory of democracy. The modern European democracy conceives the individual as the elementary unit of the Constitution.
Critical Realists such as Bertrand Russell revived the spirit of empiricist pluralism in more recent times. However, a major objection that could be raised against the pluralistic philosophies is that they, no doubt, speak of multiplicity, but not about interactions and relations among the multiplicities. Even when they speak of relations and interactions, the latter are only optional or external, not fundamental or not ontological. Plurality is understood more basic than the relations; Plurality and relationship do not stand at the same level. Pluralist philosophers are more interested in establishing the fact of multiplicity than to focus on their interrelations.
Another related philosophy that might contribute to the discussion of Inter-religious Spirituality is the philosophy of Pragmatism. Pluralism is accepted as a practical and inevitable need in American Pragmatic philosophy. Consequently, inter-religious activities could also be accepted as a pragmatic need. No more Truth is understood in a thoroughly essentialist mode in Pragmatism, but considered as a workable arrangement. In other words, Pragmatism does not recognize any other truth apart from workable arrangements. Richard Rorty, an American Pragmatist-cum-postmodernist, has grasped this non-essentialist position and has become an ardent supporter of pluralism in religious affairs. However, it has to be stated that the pragmatic acceptance of plurality of religions has not yet achieved its philosophical legitimacy thoroughly as we do have certain reservations regarding pragmatism from the ethical point of view.
According to the above discussion on the philosophical sources of inter-religious spirituality, all brands of Monism and Monotheism become problematic. In the postmodern terminology, the monistic schools of thought and monotheisms are characterized as Grand Narratives. Monism and monotheism are understood as founded upon certain number of simple abstractions that do not respond at all to the complex reality and the principle of hierarchy with ambitions of power underlies the construction of such grand systems. Monism and monotheism are asked to discharge themselves from the allegation of abstract simplicity, inability to address complex reality and contestation of cultural power.
Ancient Indian Multiple Religiosity
Now I turn over to the Indian sources of Inter-religious spirituality. I can start from the statement that the geographical entity that is called as India was never a country of mono-religion or mono-religiosity at any time of its history. From the known history of India, one can assert that it was always a land of multiple religiosities. Even a vague introduction with its ancient history would inform us that India in its long and varied forms of history has given birth to an equally varied definitions of what is a religion. Indian people of different periods and different regions have lived through these differing ideas of religion. It is interesting to probe into these definitions or understandings of what is a religion in the ancient Indian context.
(i) The Indus Popular Religiosity: The people of Indus valley did not have an organized religion. However, they did have an understanding of religiosity that could be gleaned out from the archaeological remaining of the Indus valley. The dominant theme of the Indus culture seems to be the worship of the mother goddess that was associated with the fertility of land, plants and nature as such. The enlarged womb of the female figurine was worshiped as the source of creation and multiplicity. Symbolism of water, flower and greeneries occupy a significant place in the imagination of the ancient humans. The Indus people worshiped and celebrated fertility.
Worshiping the land as the womb of nature, the flowers as carriers of fertility, plants and seeds as treasures of multiplicity etc became one of the major and popular forms of religiosity all through Indian history. This idea hailing from the Indus valley has traveled through all Indian history. Particularly this is traceable in the folk religions of the Indian people. The organized religions too contain the remnants of the worship of fertility. The sanctum sanctorum of temples is called karuvarai or womb. Many of the annual festivals of the temples are marriages of gods and goddesses. The devotees organize the marriages of their beloved deities, every year on a particular day, so that the deities begin the creation of the world anew. The mother goddess worship, so popular in the villages, too is associated with their beliefs in fertility. It is interesting to note that folk religions of India did not think it necessary to unify or codify their forms of worship into a singular institutionalized religion.
(i) The Indus Anthropocentric Religiosity: The Indus culture had another important component in the making of Indian religiosity. That is the anthropological component. The Indus stamps evidence the existence of yoga in its primitive forms in ancient India; the ancient yogi may be a shaman. Yoga as well as shamanism contained earliest ideas of male celibacy. This became the source of asceticism and personal spiritual or mystic strivings of Indian religion. The human body serves as the microcosm of the macrocosm. The yogis tested everything in their own body. They believed in the hidden powers that sleep in the body. They held a view that the microcosm and the macrocosm are one, and consequently one acquires power over the macrocosm by assuming power over one’s own body. As one can find, this is the beginning of an important trend in the history of Indian religions that goes with the name mysticism. The Sramana tradition in ancient India and the Siddha tradition during medieval period appear as the continuation of this anthropocentric trend.
(i) The Vedic idea of religiosity: The central idea of the Vedic religion seems to be the yajna and the belief in the efficacy of them. Deities such as Agni, Surya, Indra, Vayu, Varuna etc are worshiped through the yajnas. The offerings are passed over to the Vedic deities in and through the yajnas exclusively. The yajnas are a type of covenants between the gods and the performers of yajnas. If one performs the right yajna with the right mantra with the right offerings, the deities are obliged to bring forth the right effects. The purohita-priests and the Vedic mantras are compulsory moments of performing an yajna. The yajnas are at the center of the universe to the Vedic people. The creation of the universe starts from the Yajnas. The universe dissolves into the Yajnas too. Even the origin of varying social strata is associated with the performance of yajna. Agni is the primal deity of the yajna. When an yajna is performed, first the Agni is invoked and then, agni becomes the mediator between the deities and the performers of yajna. Agni of the yajna is the witness of every significant event of the life cycle of the believers of Vedic religion. Without contradicting much, one can call the Vedic religion as the religion of Yajna.
Thus one can find that the ancient India had at least three prominent modes of religiosity namely the popular, anthropocentric and Yajna. The consequent history of religions in India explored the various possibilities of unity, syncretism, differences and struggles among the above-mentioned forms of religiosities. The Indian experience of multiplicity from the most ancient days and all through its history compels us to probe into its experiences of inter-religious relations too. A feeling remains that this fact has not found adequately recognized by the indigenous as well as foreign scholars.
Anekantavada and Visesa
I pass over here from the empirical plane of ancient India to the philosophical plane. There are at least two significant ancient Indian philosophical concepts that vehemently challenge the overwhelming dominance of any mono-narrative. They are the Jaina concept of Anekanta and the Vaisesika concept of Visesa. [3] Anekantavada of Jainism seems to be the direct opposition to the Ekantavada of Brahman that was represented by the philosophy of Vedanta. If Ekantavada can be translated as the philosophy of aloneness asserting the self-assumed supremacy of the concept of Nirguna Brahman against the multi-gunic reality, then Anekantavada can be translated as the philosophy of multiplicity or as the philosophy of differences affirming the authenticity and autonomy of the atomic reality and individualized standpoints about that reality.
“Each living and non-living being or atom, and the infinite number of living beings is a cluster of infinite qualities and their modifications. So even if all these i.e. the whole truth were comprehended by the Omniscients, it was impossible to be expressed in words. And hence, the whole truth has to be seen at, and stated in infinite ways of expression”. Let us therefore,” look at this ocean of anekanta, i.e. the principle of innumerable points of view with peace and solemnity and have respect of other’s points of view, since they also hold and express partial truths” [4] Anekantavada as the doctrine of multiplicity is in so many aspects closer to some postulates of even postmodernism. It is worth here to note that the Postmodern philosophy is often identified as a standpoint of pluralistic nominalism.
Anekantavada as an epistemological conception justifies differing perceptions about the nature of reality, every one perceiving the world from his own existential situation. “All absolutist (ekantika) attitudes (nayas) are false; and therefore their collection is also false. Non-absolutist (Anekantika) attitudes are correct. Therefore all of them being meaningful (in the expression and representation of some aspect of truth); their collection is not false” [5] One cannot avoid conflicting assessments about reality when there are conflicting social groups live and struggle for their own interests in the society. Consequently, there are so many varying constructions or readings of the world. Every one perception or interpretation is as real as the other. Every one perception has its beauty and justification. The justification of individual standpoint that goes with the name Nayavada compliments the doctrine of Anekantavada.
Anekantavada and Nayavada suggest a non-violent relationship among the differing and varying points of view. It is the ethics of Ahimsa proposed by Jainism. I shall be inclined to translate the term ahimsa not only as non- killing, non-violence, but even as non-interference, non-dominance and non-coercive attitude to the other. “This attitude of Jainism is more due to its rational consciousness, than emotional compassion. It is not based on superficial or imposed social fellow feeling, but on individual responsibility. Jainism presumes infinite capacity for spiritual progress in every soul. What is needed is complete non-interference from outside. Given the freedom of development, everyone is bound to progress. Interference means spiritual dragging. Truth is not to be forced, it is only to be preached” explains V.P.Jain. [6] Ahimsa appears as the ethics of a pluralistic federative democracy, as voluntary commitment of people of one sort to respect the point of view of the people of another sort. We have no right to kill the viewpoint of another as long as it emerges from their interests and stands for their identity. No concept has the right to dominate the other in the name of more essentiality ascribed to that concept.
Another equally interesting concept in Indian philosophy that speaks for difference and multiplicity is the concept of Visesa. Visesa is literally specificity, particularity and individuality. It can imply multiplicity and differences. Logically, Visesa is that which gives definition to a thing or event against the background of the relation of generality the thing or event may have with other things and events. Visesa is also the identity of the thing or event. Visesa as the distinctive feature of the thing always resists to reduce the thing into something else whatever you call it as essence, cause or general. Visesa demands autonomy of existence of that particular phenomenon. “Visesa as constituting the ultimate differences (of atoms) exists (independent of any percipient)” [7]. Visesa insists upon the svabhava or own nature of that phenomenon. Visesa differs categorically from the regressive methodology of reduction followed by the Vedanta for the making of the concept of Brahman. It is progressively for the new that is emerging and for its specificity and assertion. Absolutizing the concept of Visesa, one can call it as the philosophy of pluralistic nominalism.
Towards the end of the discussion of the concepts of Anekanta and Visesa, inevitably arises the question of the relations that were attributed among the multiplicities. It is to this side, attention was paid by the Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism supported neither the philosophy of Ekanta nor that of Anekanta. It is a middle path between the ekantavada and the anekantavada. Buddhism does not appreciate the supreme loneliness of Brahman as well as the plurality of souls. Rather it stresses upon the interrelatedness of everything existing. Pratitya samutpada translated as universal interconnectedness is the principle that seems to be the most important for Buddhism.
Buddhism takes every individual entity as the outcome of skandha or combination of so many things. Accordingly there is no such thing as the individual entity at the last instance. The so-called individual entities are analyzable into multiplicities, and finally into nothingness. It is so, not only in the spatial plane but also in the temporal plane. Buddhism made absolute the principle of interrelatedness in time and space. It got expressed by the Buddhist concept of anatmavada or selflessness of individual entities. No thing has its individuality. It is related and undergoes change.
The Problem of the Ethical versus the Ritual
In par with the problems discussed above, the theme of the ethical versus the ritual too is one of the oldest problems of Indian philosophy.
(i) Ethical/Ritual in ancient India: The problem might have appeared in the Indus culture itself when the male-yogic figure symbolizing the internalized strivings got contrasted to the female figurines representing the popular fertility culture. The contradiction became explicit in the conflicts between the Brahmanic ritualism and Sramanic anthropocentric ethics. Brahmanism was an externalized culture whereas Sramanism was internalized. The Sramans centered their attention upon the human (body and) mind and theirs was the maanasa jnana, transformation of minds in an ethical way. The early Jain ascetics were named as Siddhas who cultivated the minds. The term Siddha means mind and Siddhis mean rare mental abilities. The ritual world is rigid and precipitated whereas the ethical realm is fluid and flexible. The ethical mode of thought is least interested in finding the ultimate ontological reality, and on the other hand, it is aimed to work out the right attitude and right behavior. The rituals maintain the status quo of the crystallized world whereas the ethical is closer to the social realm and can change the order of the world. Jainism and Buddhism indeed offered a universal ethics when the Vedas and the Bhakti stood representing rituals and defending the caste structure of Indian society. In the present context of this paper on inter-religious relations, the rituals consolidate the religious identities and the ethical, by its own definition, tries to go beyond the religious boundaries.
The doctrine of Anatmavada that was proposed by Buddhism became the springboard of ethical inward standpoint in the entire history of religions in India. Anatmavada literally means selflessness and denotes a position that is virtually against any type of ontological status to individuality. Buddhism says that the cause of suffering ultimately rooted in the feeling of individuality and consequently one must understand the constructed nature of individuality and should strive to annihilate it. “Just as the parts of a chariot put together make a chariot, and there is no chariot apart from them, similarly the different components of an individual make an individual and the individual does not exist apart from them.” [8]
By annihilating the Self, one reaches the state of Nirvana or Sunyata or emptiness of individuality. This ideal once postulated played a very prominent role in Buddhist psychological practices and entire Buddhism was directed to deconstruct the Self by various means. The doctrine of Anatmavada, if understood properly, is a very effective tool of the tradition of (Self) criticism in Indian culture. The inward emptiness worked out in terms of anatmavada became the “non-position” or “utopia” from where the critical thought of Buddhism continued to emerge. Locating in the Selfless non-position, one is able to criticize any sectarian and ontologically stable or closed position.
Anatmavada renders an enormous free space from where one can go for critically view the rigidities of religions, castes and individual identities. As such the history of Indian Mysticism gets triggered and initiated from the ideal of Anatmavada. The space earned by Anantmavada in Indian thought is vital to the question of the making of inter- religious spirituality. The ideal of anatmavada is also carried into the religious ideals of Bhakti schools. Saivism holds the view that Anavam or ego is the basic maya and its liquidation is the essential task of Saivite devotion. Vaishnavism holds the view that Parapathi or absolute surrender or absolute loss of all hopes in oneself opens up the way to God. These views apart from contributing to the devotional culture, also became the basis of religious mysticism within Saivism and Vaishnavism.
(ii) Ethical/Ritual in the Medieval India: The problem of the ethical versus the ritual becomes prominent again in the mid-medieval period when the Bhakti movement reached its peak. Despite the popular democratic potentialities of the early Bhakti traiditions, Saivism and Vaishnavism turned into institutionalized religions and the temple-mutt economy reached the zenith of the feudal age. Ritualism at the popular level was the consequence of the alienation of the religions from the people. The Bhakti religions lost all potentialities of initiative and they became the dead weights over the people. The Siddha tradition appeared at this historic juncture. Once again the binary of the ethical versus the ritual was played in the mid-medieval period. The ethical side argued that the religious identities and sectarian marks make no sense and it is your internal purity that makes any sense. It was a universal and humanitarian appeal from below. The Siddhas, for example, identified each one of the foundations of religious sectarianism and addressed their critiques against them. The scriptures, the temples, the mutts, the Brahmans, the yajnas, the caste order, the Brahmanic doctrines of pollution and untouchability, the hypocrisy of the leaders of religions, the religio-political alliance – every such aspect of religious sectarianism was uncompromisingly criticized from the ethical standpoint.
The Sufis of Islam too represented the internalized and ethical side of the conflict. Historically, Sufism appeared in the Arabian continent when the emerging Islam became a political force and won territories and wealth across the globe. Sufism is a self-criticism of Islam from within and a powerful warning against power, success and luxury of wealth that were accumulating in the political world of Islam. Sufism returned to the origins of Islam and Mohammed Nabi for inspiration. It taught the people that God could not be reached without purity of heart or hard mental practice. Annihilation of ego and merging oneself with the created world and God are the tested ways of the Sufis.
When the Sufis reached the shores of India, they very easily found commonness with the Siddhas and other mystics. In addition to the ideal of inward purity, another important problem the Sufis faced was the problem of religious sectarianism. Most of the Sufis and the Siddhas (and also the Sants) handled the problem at the mystic level. They called the people to get rid of the rigidities of sectarian religions and find the God in the name of either Ram or Allah. They were critical of the ritualism associated with the institutionalized religions.
The Siddha and Sufi influence is strongly embedded in the coming into existence of Sikhism as a late religion in Indian history. Guru Nanak, the founder Guru of Sikhism lived freely and conversed eloquently with Siddha mystics and Sufi saints, and his religion is an exploration of the inter religious space among the existing religions of the day. Guru Nanak possibly had a deep understanding of the future course of Indian history in terms of multiplicity of religions. The compositional and linguistic structures of the Sikh Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib explicitly stand to evidence this fact. Guru Granth Sahib contains the hymns of Sufi saints, Siddha poets and Vaishnavite Sants along with that of the Sikh Gurus.
Guru Granth Sahib expresses its vivid religious experiences both in Arabian-Persian and Sanscrite linguistic idioms. The ideology constructed by the Sikh Gurus too is inter-religious. Guru Granth Sahib renders a wonderful civilizational model for the future India. Sikhism has the potentiality to make inter religious spirituality of the mystics into a popular social sentiment.
Conclusion
India has offered multiple forms of religiosity from its most ancient days. Thanks to the foundational position of Anatmavada in Indian thought and the broad influence of the mystics among common masses, the Indian religions did not acquire rigid boundaries among them till the end of 19th century. Indian mysticism has always strived to transcend the boundaries and the rigid names and forms, and saints such as the Siddhas, the Sufis and the Sants, and late religions such as Sikhism have contributed to the making of Inter Religious Community life. The boundaries indeed were drawn only by the British census taking exercises and the communal politics of the British since the late decades of 19th century. At the Folk practical levels of society, even now the religions of India do not have exact boundaries. And this always serves as the biggest source of Inter Religious Spirituality in Indian culture.
References
Copyright©2006 N. Muthumohan. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article