Beware of the Hindu

Excerpt from the play Tughlaq by Girish Karnad (Kannada playwrite), set in 14th century India... [Three Modern Indian Plays, OUP 1989; p2]

**Crowd scene. A bunch of Muslims chatting with each other.**

Old Man: Beware of the Hindu who embraces you. Before you know what, he'll turn Islam into another caste and call the Prophet an incarnation of his god...

It is a nice little satire on the Hindu's thirst for universality. It is also a pointer of how even if you try to embrace everything, ppl who have closed themselves into only thinking "you or me" find it difficult even to agree with such universal accpetance.

Here is another dialogue from Fountainhead, which illustartes this point:

"Howard, why do you hate me?"

"I don't hate you."

"Well that's it! Why don't you hate me atleast?"

"Why should I?"

"Just to give me something. I know you can't like me. You can't like anybody. So it will be kinder to acknowledge people's existence by hating them."

Funny world. Some ppl find it easy if they are hated by Hindus, because then it will place the Hindus too on equal pedestrial to themselves. "I dont accept your religion; you too dont accept my religion" gives him a moral satisfaction than saying "My religion is the only true religion and it rejects your religion as a false religion; but your religion accepts my religion as true"

Anyhow lets not forget that Truth is not something which can be changed as we like so that it suits our requirements.

Maya - the most misunderstood word in Vedanta

Usually many people understand maya as "illusion" and thus call Shankara a mayavadi or talk the word literally and say "the world is an illusion". Both are wrong.

The definition of According to Shankara

sharIra dvaya kAraNam AtmAgnAnAm-sABHAsamavyAkritam api ittyucchate
Etat kAraNasharIram AtmAna:
taccha na saNNAsaNNApi sadasaNNA BHiNNAm nABHiNNAm nApi BHiNNABHiNNAm krutashchit, na niravayavam, na sAvayavam nOBHayam, kintu kEvala-brahmAtmyaikatva gnAnApanODHyam

Bound up with the reflection of pure-consciousness, the mAyA, which hides the Atmanand is the cause of both the gorss and subtle bodies, is called the 'avYakriti' or undifferentiated. This is the causal body of the jIvAtman. mAyA is neither existent, nor non-existent nor even both existent and non-existent; niether different from, nor identical with, nor both different from and identical with, the Atman. This mAya is neither composite, nor noncomposite, nor both composite and non-composite, but removable only by the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Ataman.

- srI Adisankara bhagavadpAda in panchIkaraNA, a prAkaraNa grantha (i.e, a preliminary text for students of vEdAnta).

In the classic rope/snake example, as long as we are in darkness, we perceive the rope to be snake. In this state of ignorance, the snake is real (for all practical purposes) and affects us - we experience the fear, we sweat etc etc. But what is the actual reality of this snake? We cannot say that this snake is totally unreal - cuz we are experiencing it/its effects. We cannot even say that this snake is totally real either - cuz its not as real as the rope. so its an unique state - state of mithya. The reality of world is *similar* to the reality of such snake. Neither real nor unreal.

Its important to note is that as long as we perceive the snake, it is real for all practical purposes. But from the standpoint of rope the snake is unreal. So from the standpoint of brahman - world is unreal. But from the vyavahArika standpoint - world is real.

so advaita DOES NOT totally negate the existence of world/Soul. it only says that this world is not as real as brahman. world is only a "realtive reality" (called mithya) where as brahman is the only absolute reality.

"mithya = unreal" is totally wrong - misunderstanding/misinterpretation

"mithya = neither totally real nor totally unreal; it is conditionally real" is the correct definition.

Question: Now what do we mean by this conditional reality and the parellel realities? According to physics the truth of any thing is with respect to its prespective or frame of reference, this also implies that there can exist parallel truths to a particular situation depending on the prespective

The existence of parallel truths in my view is also acknowledged by Vedanta.

I think the definitions 'truth' itself changes in these cases, hence, the assement.

If I say 'today is thursday', it is true. But is dependent on the person or the date which is said, and may be sometime false also.

Even though scinece may call it true, I think this statement cannot be termed true. To be accurate, it has to be said 'conditional truth'.

According to Advaita, there are 3 orders of reality:

1. paramarthika satyam (absolute reality)
2. vyavaharika satyam (empirical reality)
3. pratibhasika satyam (subjective reality)

Brahman alone is paramarthika satyam.

The universe comprising external objects and our bodies and minds is vyavaharika satyam. (it is NOT as real as brahman)

The dream world is pratibhasika satyam. (2 & 3 are mithya)

All are true, in certain sense. But the first is unconditional truth;

The second is common conditional truth. common conditional implying all having the same perception- the same world, the same earth

The third is individual conditional truth. individual conditional implying it holds for a single individual only, everyone does not have the same dream.

So when the we say "Brahman alone is true" or say "truth is god", it implies to the first, unconditional truth.

I guess we can draw similar parallels in science too.

The classical science may be the second level- Newton's laws may hold true for all of us.

I think psychological science may be similar to third level.

The relativistic modles try to include the observer into the system, and they too try to arrive at universal truths, not just conditional (like speed of light)

So, I dont think that there is really any contradiction. We are just comparing the first level in Vedanta with the second of science.

Religion & Society in Indian and Western context

The following is from a talk of Swami Vivekananda. This talk was given in the west, so the "you" there refers to the west.

-----------------8<-----------

The Vedanta was (and is) the boldest system of religion. It stopped nowhere, and it had one advantage. There was no body of priests who sought to suppress every man who tried to tell the truth. There was always absolute religious freedom. In India the bondage of superstition is a social one; here in the West society is very free. Social matters in India are very strict, but religious opinion is free. In England a man may dress any way he likes, or eat what he lilies — no one objects; but if he misses attending church, then Mrs. Grundy is down on him. He has to conform first to what society says on religion, and then he may think of the truth. In India, on the other hand, if a man dines with one who does not belong to his own caste, down comes society with all its terrible powers and crushes him then and there. If he wants to dress a little differently from the way in which his ancestor dressed ages ago, he is done for. I have heard of a man who was cast out by society because he went several miles to see the first railway train. Well, we shall presume that was not true! But in religion, we find atheists, materialists, and Buddhists, creeds, opinions, and speculations of every phase and variety, some of a most startling character, living side by side. Preachers of all sects go about reaching and getting adherents, and at the very gates of the temples of gods, the Brâhmins — to their credit be it said — allow even the materialists to stand and give forth their opinions.

Buddha died at a ripe old age. I remember a friend of mine, a great American scientist, who was fond of reading his life. He did not like the death of Buddha, because he was not crucified. What a false idea! For a man to be great he must be murdered! Such ideas never prevailed in India. This great Buddha travelled all over India, denouncing her gods and even the God of the universe, and yet he lived to a good old age. For eighty years he lived, and had converted half the country.

Thus India has always had this magnificent idea of religious freedom, and you must remember that freedom is the first condition of growth. What you do not make free, will never grow. The idea that you can make others grow and help their growth, that you can direct and guide them, always retaining for yourself the freedom of the teacher, is nonsense, a dangerous lie which has retarded the growth of millions and millions of human beings in this world. Let men have the light of liberty. That is the only condition of growth.

We, in India, allowed liberty in spiritual matters, and we have a tremendous spiritual power in religious thought even today. You grant the same liberty in social matters, and so have a splendid social organisation. We have not given any freedom to the expansion of social matters, and ours is a cramped society. You have never given any freedom in religious matters but with fire and sword have enforced your beliefs, and the result is that religion is a stunted, degenerated growth in the European mind. In India, we have to take off the shackles from society; in Europe, the chains must be taken from the feet of spiritual progress. Then will come a wonderful growth and development of man. If we discover that there is one unity running through all these developments, spiritual, moral, and social, we shall find that religion, in the fullest sense of the word, must come into society, and into our everyday life. In the light of Vedanta you will Understand that all sciences are but manifestations of religion, and so is everything that exists in this world.

-------------->8----------------

A lot of changes has come in society in the last 100 years, when he said so, and luckily our society too is opening up.