Freedom
from History and Institutional Authority
In Hindu
traditions, the state of consciousness of Jesus is achievable by each one of us
and is not dependent on belief in a specific deity or historical event or
institution. Nor do we have to die in order to achieve this state of
consciousness; we can do so while living in this world, just as Christ
presumably did. ‘Dhyana’, ‘jnana’, ‘tantra’ and ‘bhakti’ are some of the
do-it-yourself methods and techniques that do not rely on external authority.
There is no church, pontiff or central authority. Rather, numerous
incarnations, prophets, saints and spiritual methods over several millennia
have kept the traditions alive with fresh interpretations. As Sri Aurobindo
puts it:
Here is the first baffling difficulty over which the
European mind stumbles; for it finds itself unable to make out what Indian
Religion is. Where, it asks, is its soul? Where is its mind and fixed thoughts?
Where is the form of its body? How can there be a religion which has no rigid
dogmas to demand belief on pain of eternal damnation, no theological
postulates, even no fixed theology, no credo, distinguishing it from
antagonistic or rival religions? How can there be a religion that has no papal
head, no governing ecclesiastic body, no church, chapel or congregational
system, no binding religious form of any kind obligatory on all its adherents,
no one administration and discipline? For the Hindu priests are mere ceremonial
officials without any ecclesiastical authority or disciplinary powers and the
pundits are mere interpreters of the Shastra, not the lawgivers of the religion
or its rulers. How again can Hinduism be called a religion when it admits all
beliefs, allowing even a high-reaching atheism and agnosticism and permits all
possible spiritual experiences, all kinds of religious adventures?[1]
Hinduism has no
standard or official (i.e., normative) theology, because there was never an
ecclesiology in ancient India: no formalization of church-like institutions, no
official clerical body with universal authority to canonize, normalize and make
critical editions of dogma, and especially no structures to be forced on
society. Even where such authoritative claims existed, they had limited
jurisdiction and were vigorously challenged and hence never succeeded in
retaining much control over time.
No authority
pronounces someone a Hindu. There is no mandatory equivalent to baptism as a
point of entry, nothing which is performed by a church-certified priest or
minister and makes one a member of the Christian community. Since Hinduism does
not require membership in an organization, club or institution, and since it
glorifies sadhus, who pursue their own independent journey, the problem of
excessive institutional control has never arisen. No authority has the power to
excommunicate a person from Hinduism.
There are many
forms of devotional practice in the dharma traditions - performed individually
or as a group, directed to a formless God or a particular deity, performed at
home or in a temple. The average dharma practitioner is largely free from institutional
authority, or at least there is no theological requirement for the equivalent
of a church or umma.
There is a commonly
held view that westerners, by and large, are individualistic whereas Asians are
not, and yet, on examination, the exact opposite would appear to be the case.
Westerners who practice Judaism or Christianity tend to be formal members of
well-defined religious organizations which engender conformity. Many Western
families have been affiliated with such institutions for centuries. Change is
slow and based on consensus which forms over long periods. Individual dissent
and attempts at personalizing religious practice are frowned upon. In contrast,
dharma traditions are marked by individualism at the base.
No dharmic group
would consider enforcing its particular tradition or set of practices on all of
humanity or even on another community. No religious group in the history of
dharmic civilizations has ever tried to do so - at least not for any
significant length of time and not over a large territory. None of the dharma
spiritual traditions is compelled by God or any other authority to convert
others. The individual’s spiritual journey toward enlightened living is not
based on any collective action, feat or performance by one’s group over any
other groups. There are no infidels - only a lack of knowledge. Local governors
(‘jati-panchayats’) have had the authority to impose fines for breach of rules
and expel errant members in extreme cases, but their jurisdiction is always
local and limited.
There is no
privileged tribe, culture, place or time relative to God, because God is a
prolific communicator, always accessible, and does not grant anyone the
exclusive franchise to represent him. No community’s narrative is absolute, nor
is it sanctioned to undermine the narratives of others. This is how diverse
worldviews, practices, paths, images and subcultures can coexist.
Nor is it necessary
that there be ideological agreement in order to be worthy of respect. Shankara,
for example, did not exclude people who dissented from his view from entering
his circle; rather, he engaged them in dialogue. Intellectual debate and reason
were never severed from religious life, faith and worship.
Rajiv Malhotra
(Being
Different, pp 133-136)
[1] Sri
Aurobindo, Renaissance of India
(previously titled “Foundations of Indian Culture”), pp 179-180
No comments:
Post a Comment