So contentious is the definition of "Hinduism" that even India's Supreme Court refused to define what constitutes "Hinduism"! Thus, it has become a sort of free-for-all, with some claiming that "Hinduism" is merely a lifestyle, some others claiming that it is the "Sanatana Dharma" (eternal law) of India, and yet more claiming that any religion can be "accommodated within Hinduism," whatever that means! :) What then is this elusive notion named "Hinduism"? In this post, I trace back the evolution of the major religions of India, and how they relate to each other as well as the other major world religions. In doing so, I will present facts based on my readings of the evolution of the major world religions as well as my thoughts on what "Hinduism" is and who the "Hindus" of today are. I will also show how there are many surprising relationships among the world religions, and how many open research questions remain for historians and anthropologists.
Three Groups of Major World Religions:
Based on historical, anthropological, archaeological, hermeneutical, and linguistic evidence, scholars have managed to piece together how and when most of the major world religions originated and evolved. As with biology, there is also a convenient and popular taxonomy. There are 3 main groups of extant world religions: Abrahamic, Hindu/Indian/Dharmic, and Sinitic/Taoic. They are classified based on the geography of their origin: Abrahamic religions are from West Asia, Indian religions are from South Asia (the Indian subcontinent), while Taoic religions are from East Asia. After digesting the origins of these religions, I have created the following graphical representation of the chronological occurrence of each major world religion and how they relate to each other (click to enlarge):
The key lesson from the graph is that almost no major world religion existed or exists in isolation. Contrary to the claims made by the overzealous leaders and followers of most religions, almost all the extant religions of the world are simply ideas that have recycled and innovated upon a bunch of preexisting ideas! :) I will now explore each portion of the graph in detail.
Pre-historical Religions
We begin with pre-history because almost all the major extant world religions were originally derived from pre-historical animistic and polytheistic traditions. When human society was still in the hunter-gatherer phase (tens of thousands of years ago), man was at a loss to explain the powerful forces of nature. Hence, animism and polytheism seemed to be a natural solution. By anthropomorphizing physical entities such as the Sun, the Moon, rivers, mountains, stars, fire, etc., and by assigning "inexplicable powers" to them, man was able to mitigate some cognitive dissonance caused by his ignorance of how the physical world works, in terms of mechanistic explanations. Interestingly, this has been observed in almost all human societies across the world, be it the islands of the Pacific, the deserts of Egypt, the plains of India, or the rainforests of Africa. The most influential of these are the polytheistic religions of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the Indus peoples, the Proto-Semites, and the Sinitic peoples. All the major extant world religions of today are based on ideas and concepts derived from these ancient religions. Thus, I ignore many other polytheistic religions such as those from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, and the Americas. We will now dive deeper into each of these four major polytheistic religions and their descendants.
Indo-European Polytheism and Its Descendants:
This is perhaps the most influential polytheistic religion in terms of both numbers and geographic extent. Developing over the course of several centuries from 6000 to 2000 years ago, this religion gave birth to some of the most famous polytheistic religions in history - Graeco-Roman polytheism of the ancient Greeks and Romans as well the Vedic Brahminical polytheism of the ancient Indians. With a rich pantheon of deities devoted to the forces of nature as well as emotions of man, this religion featured a bewildering array of Gods and Goddesses. Graeco-Roman polytheism is now extinct, and any remnant influence of those religions has been thoroughly expunged by the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. However, Vedic Brahminism still exists in India, both in its original form and in more diffused forms. Being the religion of the ancient Indo-Aryan peoples of India, it is one of the twin bases of the diverse Hindu group of religions. Thus, we shall explore it deeper to find the origin of the so-called "Hinduism."
Vedic Brahminism is, at its core, a heavily ritualistic and priest-oriented polytheistic religion. In fact, the central authoritative texts of this religion, the Vedas, are mostly manuals for rituals and praises for the numerous Gods of this religion. Being the chief religion of the Indo-Aryans that settled in the Ganges plains, this religion has decayed and lost its original character over the course of several millennia. Nevertheless, some of its ideas and concepts have been inherited by newer Hindu religions. At present, only a small sect of people called the Srauta Namboodiris of Kerala seem to follow this religion strictly. A key factor for the decay of Vedic Brahminism has been the continual dialogue between the priest-scholars of this religion, the brahmans (anglicized as brahmins), with the descendants of a mysterious Indus religion that is hypothesized to be the ancestor of Jainism, the shramans (more on this later). Eventually, the focus on nature Gods such as Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Agni, etc. that was at the core of Vedic Brahminism gave way to new "all-purpose" Gods such as Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, etc., which led to the creation of monotheistic Hindu religions. And the emphasis on ritual worship in Vedic Brahminism gave way to an emphasis on "personal devotion" in its daughter Hindu religions.
The ancestors of the Indo-Aryans of India also settled in ancient Iran, giving birth to a rival polytheistic religion there. In fact, Vedic Brahminism shares many interesting similarities with that religion. For example, the nature God Mitra (a name with roots in the proto-Indo-Iranian language that gave birth to both Avestan Persian and Vedic Sanskrit) is revered in both. Also, the Indo-Aryans called their Gods devas and Demons asuras, while the Iranians, in an apparent act of sibling rivalry, called their Gods ahuras and Demons devas! :D Eventually though, due to the efforts of a man named Zoroaster, the Iranians moved towards monotheism and chose a single ahura named "Ahura Mazda" as their sole God. This gave birth to what is probably the world's oldest extant monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism. Being the official religion of the vast Achaemenid Persian Empire, Zoroastrianism rose to become one of the most prestigious world religions. In fact, it is hypothesized that the ancient Semites were inspired to move towards monotheism due to Zoroastrian influence in the Levant (more on this later).
Indus Religion(s?):
One of the biggest open research challenges in anthropology, linguistics, and history is deciphering the script of the Indus Valley Civilization, an urbane Bronze-age civilization that predates the Ganges basin-based Sanskritic Vedic Brahminical civilization of the Indo-Aryans by several centuries. Locked away in their seals and artifacts are records of who the Indus peoples were, what their way of life was, and what their religion(s) was/were. It is hypothesized that the Indus peoples were the proto-Dravidians, who gradually migrated to southern India after regional climate change ravaged the Indus basin with extremes of floods and droughts. However, there is no concrete evidence for this yet. Excavations show that they might have had at least one polytheistic religion that included worshipping a powerful mother Goddess figure as well as various male deities. Yet, the Indus culture is also hypothesized to be where Jainism has its roots. Along with Vedic Brahminism, Jainism is one of the twin bases of the Hindu religions. Thus, we shall explore it a bit more deeply.
Jainism is, at its core, an individualistic atheistic religion. It could not be more different than Vedic Brahminism! It places great emphasis on personal spiritual experience through strict asceticism, unlike the priest and ritual-oriented Vedic Brahminical religion. There are no supernatural entities such as Gods and Goddesses that shower blessings on humans. Rather, it is through contemplation and introspection that a practitioner intuits his or her own problems and their solutions. A common mistake that people looking at Jainism make is that they assume that followers of this religion "worship" Mahavira and some other "Gods." In reality, these men are simply considered exemplary practitioners of Jainism, who passed on their insights and learning to others!
In this way, Jainism is truly unique as it is the first religion to break free of the shackles of theism (belief in supernatural entities).Two central ideas of Jainism are non-violence (ahimsa, which was eventually popularized as a political tool by Mahatma Gandhi) and the plurality of subjective experience (anekantavaada). The dialogue between Jainism and Vedic Brahminism gave birth to refinements in each religion, and resulted in the generation of new ideas. For example, it is hypothesized that the brahmans adopted vegetarianism from the shramans (in fact, many Jains remain more zealously vegetarian than the Brahmins of today), while the ideas of dharma, karma, and moksha, which originated in atheistic Jainism were adopted, redefined, and appropriated by the theists of Vedic Brahminism!
The Abrahamic Religions - A Brief Detour:
Meanwhile, in the Levant, in moving from the polytheistic religion of their ancestors towards a monotheistic religion with Yahweh as the sole God, the Jewish people created another highly influential world religion--Judaism. However, Judaism retained many archaic ritualistic and priest-oriented practices. Due to discontentment with the priestly class, the teachings of a Jewish reformer named Jesus became popular. His teachings were eventually repackaged by his followers to create a new monotheistic religion--Christianity--about 2000 years ago. Later on, as Christianity came to Europe, it was influenced by descendants of Indo-European polytheism (derisively referred to as pagan religions), and adopted some of their practices. Later on, about 1300 years ago, an Arab reformer named Mohammed accused Christianity of "contaminating" the monotheism of Judaism with polytheistic-style ideas. He wanted to restore Judaism-style strict aniconic monotheism (tawhid) and thus, he created a new monotheistic religion--Islam. Since there is practically no deep theological difference between Judaism and Islam, I occasionally refer to them together as Judeo-Islam! :)
Militarized Islamic empires conquered most of north Africa and West Asia in order to spread Islam, and destroyed the once-powerful religion of Zoroastrianism as well as other animistic and polytheistic religions of the Middle East. The Arab Islamic armies also attacked India but failed to make headway. Hence, the Hindu religions did not face the same fate as their sibling religion in Iran. In fact, a small population of Zoroastrians escaped from Iran to India (the Parsis), where they still live today. Finally, about 200 years ago, an Iranian reformer named Baha'ullah reformed Islam to create the Bahai religion, which is a less strict form of monotheism than Islam. Far away, in the United States, a businessman named Joseph Smith created the Mormon religion, which is basically an Americanized form of Christianity. These 5 religions together worship Yahweh as their sole God, with Abraham as a main patriarchal prophet. Thus, they are collectively known as the Abrahamic religions.
In my opinion, the Abrahamic religions are effectively a single religion that worship the same God Yahweh, but they have major political differences! :D
The Birth of New Hindu Religions:
Back in India, about 2500 years ago, a man named Siddhartha found the continual tussle between the theists of Vedic Brahminism and the atheists of Jainism to be futile. He was more interested in answering deeper questions of human happiness and suffering and did not find any of the existing Hindu religions satisfactory. He discovered the now-famous "middle way" between the extremes of sensual indulgence and asceticism. Eventually, his followers packaged his teachings as a new religion and called him the Buddha, and his religion, Buddhism. Buddhism, at its core, is an agnostic-atheistic religion. Like the Jains, the Buddhists do not believe in supernatural entities, but rather, consider contemplative practice and self-experience as paramount. But Buddhism does not require its followers to follow extreme asceticism, which makes it a "softer" daughter of Jainism.
After the efforts of Emperor Ashoka, the Great, Buddhism rose to prominence as a state religion of India. Furthermore, he sent emissaries to other parts of Asia to spread Buddhism, raising it to the status of a major world religion, which it remains today. Apart from Buddhism, minor atheistic religions/philosophies named Charvaka and Ajivika were also created, but are now extinct. Collectively, Jainism, Buddhism, Charvaka, and Ajivika are known as nastika darshana, which literally means religions that reject the authority of the Vedas, but can also be interpreted as the atheistic branch of Hindu religions. And as with Judeo-Islam, due to the fundamental similarities between Jainism and Buddhism, I occasionally refer to them together as Jaina-Buddhism.
Concomitant with the evolution of atheistic Hindu religions, the theistic branch was also undergoing its own evolution. In conjunction with the writing of new philosophical texts such as the Upanishads as well as the great epics (Ramayanam and Mahabharatam), theistic Hindus started gravitating towards monotheistic religions, akin to the Iranians and Jews. As had become common in India by then, there was no agreement among the Hindus even in this process of "monotheistization"! :D At least 4 major monotheistic religions evolved: Shaivism, in which Shiva is the one true God; Vaishnavism, with its Vishnu; Kaumaram, with its Karthikeya; and Shaktism, in which the divine mother is the one true God... er, Goddess! :D
Unlike Vedic Brahminism, these monotheistic Hindu religions were more easily graspable for laymen due to their emphasis on simple devotion (bhakti) rather than elaborate rituals (yajna) in Sanskrit, which by then had ceased to be the language of the masses. Thus, the monotheistic Hindu religions rose to prominence, relegating the polytheistic Vedic Brahminical religion to the sidelines. As it happened between the various monotheistic Abrahamic religions, the Hindu monotheists often warred against each other, especially Shaivism and Vaishnavism, which had become archrival religions. Vedic Brahminism, however, did not disappear in toto, but rather, its polytheistic beliefs and practices continued to influence the new Hindu monotheistic religions. Thus, strictly speaking, the Hindu monotheistic religions should be referred to as "henotheistic" monotheism, i.e., religions whose followers may acknowledge the existence of other Gods, but worship only one chosen God as their supreme entity.
From about 2200 years ago and for a millenium, 3 of these new Hindu religions came to dominate Indian culture and society: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and Buddhism.Across India, several kingdoms adopted these 3 religions as state religions (some also included Jainism and Shaktism in this list). As a brief, but interesting, aside, the Hindu religions also influenced other parts of Asia. Due to the close trading and cultural relationship between southeast Asia and southeastern Indian kingdoms, especially the Pallavas and the Cholas of South India and the Palas of East India, these 3 Hindu religions came to dominate southeast Asia as well. It was due to this cultural exchange that the massive architectural marvels of southeast Asia were built - Angkor Wat in Cambodia (a massive Vishnu temple - in fact, the world's largest Hindu temple; later, it was used as Buddhist temple), Prambanan (primarily, a Shiva temple), and Borobodur (a Buddhist temple), both in Indonesia. Eventually, Buddhism became more popular among the masses, while the theistic Hindu religions became extinct in southeast Asia (except in the island of Bali). Eventually, Islam supplanted the Hindu religions a few centuries ago in Indonesia and Malaysia, while Buddhism remains the dominant religion elsewhere in southeast Asia.
Advaita Vedantism: A Groundbreaking Post-Atheistic Theism:
In contrast to the developments in southeast Asia, in India itself, Buddhism (and Jainism) came under intense fire from the priest-scholars of the theistic Hindu religions. There was a renewed interest in the long-lost ways of the Vedic Brahminical religion, reinterpreted in light of the atheism of Jaina-Buddhism as well as the conflicts between the monotheistic Hindu religions. The most prominent of these priest-scholars was a man named Adi Shankara, from south India. About 1500 years ago, Adi Shankara traveled across India and held philosophical debates about the nature of reality with Jaina-Buddhist scholars in various royal courts across India. Most of these questions were about the "why" or "how" of life and death. Since Jaina-Buddhist scholars place an emphasis on logic and reason, they did not have satisfactory answers for some of these philosophical questions that are beyond the framework of logic and reason.
Thus, Adi Shankara and his followers scored many victories over Jaina-Buddhist scholars, eventually leading to the decline in both royal and popular support for Jaina-Buddhism. Adi Shankara's arguments were based on the abstract philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, who roots are buried in the later Vedas and Upanishads but had never been unearthed in practice. Thanks to the efforts of Adi Shankara and his intellectual followers (all the way down to Mahatma Gandhi himself!), Advaita Vedantism started rising to prominence as the dominant Hindu religion of India, which it remains today.
Advaita Vedantism, at its core, is a monistic religion (for all practical purposes, Smaartism is another name for this religion). The word "advaita" literally means "non-dual". Its strict interpretation is that man (read nature, or "creation") is not distinct from God (the divine, or "creator") but rather inseparable. Furthermore, God in Advaita Vedantism, given the name Brahman, or Parabrahmam, is not an anthropomorphic entity like in the monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Rather, Brahman is defined very abstractly as the "unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all matter, energy, space, and time." Such a definition of God is unprecedented in the history of major world religions. Essentially, Advaita Vedantists believe that God is one, but can have infinite names and forms, i.e., it is an inclusive and accretion-based religion, rather than the exclusivism of previous monotheistic religions.
In defining God as such, Advaita Vedantism achieved something truly remarkable--it reconciled the vast differences between Vedic polytheism and the various monotheistic Hindu religions.Essentially, an Advaita Vedantist is free to choose any form of God that he desires (ishtadevata) as long as he recognizes the underlying "unity in infinity". In fact, Adi Shankara instituted the tradition of Shanmata - worship of 6 of the then most popular Gods - Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Karthikeya, Ganesha, and Surya - as different aspects of the same God.
In contrast to most polytheistic and monotheistic religions, many of whose claims about God are falsifiable by the framework of scientific reasoning and logic, many of the claims of Advaita Vedantism are neither verifiable and falsifiable. Putting it bluntly, many of its claims constitute what scientists call "bullshit"! :D As an exampe, in the USA, a man named Deepak Chopra has espoused Advaita Vedantic ideas and repackaged it as "New Age" theism. He is regularly accused by sceptics and atheists of "bullshitting" when debating them on the question of God. :D Thus, one thing is clear to me from the twin lessons of Jaina-Buddhism defeating Vedic Brahminism and the various Hindu monotheisms, followed by Advaita Vedantism defeating Jaina-Buddhism in India:
Verifiable truths will eventually defeat falsifiable falsehoods, but even such truths can be given a run for their money by beautiful-sounding bullshit! :DI think a similar story will unfold in the Western world over the next few decades, with the relentless march of atheism and science defeating the Abrahamic religions, but eventually being defeated by New-Age-style or SBNR-style philosophies (akin to Advaita Vedantism).
On a more serious note, it is clear that Advaita Vedantism was designed to be intellectually-oriented in a manner similar to Jaina-Buddhism. Thus, many of its properties resemble Jaina-Buddhism. In fact, unlike Vedic Brahminism, which emphasizes ritual worship, and Hindu monotheisms, which emphasize personal devotion, both Advaita Vedantism and Jaina-Buddhism emphasize contemplation and self-discovery. This is why some Hindu scholars accuse Adi Shankara of being a "Buddhist in disguise"! :D Anyways, the Iyers of south India were the first major converts to Advaita Vedantism, from Shaivism, while the Iyengars rejected Advaita Vedantism in favor of Vaishnavism. Meanwhile, in North India, where invasions from West Asia had brought Islam, a philosopher named Guru Nanak reconciled Advaita Vedantism and Islam to create Sikhism, a new monotheistic Hindu religion. Many of Sikhism's practices are a hybrid of Islam and the Hindu religions. For all practical purposes, the core theology of Sikhism can be considered as a slightly restricted version of Advaita Vedantism.
Taoic Religions: Another Brief Detour
Buddhism was exported from India to China, where it mingled with the local animistic and polytheistic religions. The most popular among these is Taoism, which remains a popular religion for millions of Chinese. Lao Tzu is a prominent philosopher that is revered as a deity in this religion (although, he is revered otherwise as a human too). However, the most dominant religion in China is an atheistic religion created by a scholar named Confucius, a religion that we now call Confucianism. Confucius, like the Buddha, was not interested in philosophical questions of God, life, death, etc., but rather worldly questions of personal morality, family issues, administering the state, etc. Modern Chinese society, as well the state, are heavily influenced by Confucianism. Many followers of Lao Tzu and Confucius also follow the Buddha's teachings, leading to the creation of a new colloquial "religion" referred to as the "triple religion" in China and Vietnam. It is mostly an atheistic religion that reveres these three men as great philosophical teachers.
In neighboring Japan, the animistic religion of Shintoism remains the dominant religion there. While its followers revere several nature deities, spirits, and their ancestors, it is not an organized monotheistic or polytheistic religion like the Abrahamic religions or some Hindu religions. Thus, many Japanese also follow aspects of Buddhism and perhaps other Taoic religions. As an aside, I mention an interesting connection that binds India, China, and Japan. Perhaps the most famous religious export from Japan is Zen, a school of Mahayana Buddhism that has become synonymous with insight and inner peace. The founder of this sect is Bodhidharma, hypothesized to be a Pallava king from Kanchipuram in South India! He traveled from the Tamil land to China, teaching both the Shaolinquan and Chan, which later became Zen in Japan.
Conclusion:
Returning to India, I now answer the questions that I posed in the beginning. The inclusiveness of Advaita Vedantism proved so attractive and "politically correct" that Swami Vivekananda presented this religion as the "true Hinduism" at an international conference on religions. Other scholars, such as Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Mahatma Gandhi, also came to consider Advaita Vedantism as the "Sanatana Dharma," or "eternal law" of India. Gandhi, in fact, argued for Yahweh (Allah in Arabic) and Jesus to be considered as more forms of Brahman, creating his own extension to Advaita Vedantism that I have labeled Gandhian Vedantism.
Gandhian Vedantism is the basis of what is known as "secularism" in India, at least to some parts of the society! :D Thus, whenever people mention "Hinduism" these days, it is by default assumed to be the monistic religion of Advaita Vedantism or its extension, Gandhian Vedantism. In fact, many Hindus themselves do not even realize these vast distinctions and/or do not even know the term Advaita Vedantism! However, it is incorrect to assume that all Hindus worship a single God in their desired form and are accepting of different definitions of God.
The atheists of Jaina-Buddhism, the monotheists of Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Shaivism, Sikhism, etc., the polytheists of Vedic Brahminism, as well as the followers of many indigenous folk religions of India (usually animistic and polytheistic) are as much "Hindu" as the monists of Advaita Vedantism and Gandhian Vedantism.Depending on whether Gandhian Vedantism can be considered a new Hindu religion (no one except me has used this term so far! :D), and depending on whether the Judeo-Muslims and Christians of India espouse Gandhian Vedantism, they too can be considered "Hindus." Thus, Judeo-Muslims that reject any other form/name of God other than Yahweh/Allah, and Christians that reject any other form/name of God other than Yahweh/Jesus/the Holy Spirit are not "Hindus" in the religious sense. In my opinion, any Indian (indeed, anyone) who believes that "God is one but has many names and forms" is technically a Hindu of the Advaita Vedantic kind in the religious sense, whether they recognize it or not. :)
10 comments:
This is karthikeyan, your IITM batchmate. Hope you are doing well ! That was a great read ! Its a nice summary. I have certain questions based on my very limited reading on these topics for sometime.
"Putting it bluntly, many of its claims constitute what scientists call "bullshit" "
I can sort of agree that definitely from the current scientific consensus surely all of advaita seems like BS. Because if materialistic reductionism is the metric by which we judge philosophies, I feel it is not hard to conclude this is BS.
However, I would like to ask why in your opinion should jainism + buddhism be exempt from such a conclusion?
Jainism has this concept of human souls + law of karma + reincarnation. Even buddhism has its fair share of karma+ reincarnation theories none of which sounds 'scientific'. I know they said all this with a disclaimer "You do not have to believe in what we have said. You are welcome to use your own judgement." Apart from this encouragement, I do not see much science in them either to be honest.
I guess a more pertinent question in my opinion is: Do you believe in free will + consciousness that is not materially reducible? If your answer is no, all of jainism+buddhism+hinduism is BS however you look at it. I may be wrong here though. My only point is- why all of them are not BS but only advaita is?
Vedas are primarily texts about rituals:
Well, this seems to be the popular opinion. However, even very recent 'western' scholarly opinion is not all for it. You can read: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/
and http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/general/facultyhomes/SacredMysteries.pdf.The author says that conventional methods are not the right ways of deciphering an old text which is in vedic sanskrit which differs from classical sanskrit.
So my opinion so far is: rig veda has not been properly deciphered. So it may be premature to think it is completely a ritual text.
I had to split this in two comments. There seems to be a character limits.
Here are some of my thoughts on your blogpost.
You could read bharathi's (20th century tamil poet) preface to his gita translation here:http://www.sangatham.com/bhagavad_gita/gita-intro.
Its very long and its in tamil. There is a Thayumanavar song quoted. Around that part, there is a very detailed discussion of the effects on jainism+ buddhism on our society which is very revealing. He also says not many ppl really know what vedas are about.
You seem to think atheistic jainism+buddhism are exemplary and hinduism had to don a different role (with the help of sankara) to counter them. I agree with the second part.
But there is another story which is more interesting - the effect of jainism+buddhism on society. Both religions extol the ascetic way of life (one more vehemently than the other). If you refer to bharathi's preface, he says this emphasis filled india with so many bhikkus+monks + monasteries at one point in time. In their social strata, monasteries were high up even above the kings.
If you look at the spiritualism in hinduism prior to jainism+buddhism it seems to be characterized by high thinking philosophy of upanishads+ mahabharata+ ramayana that was produced by great rishis (if you care less about the authorship issue now) who were also householders who had spouses and children.
One of the main tenets of buddhism is that normal material life is full of suffering. I think the upanishadic seers rejected this. In fact, Vyasa, valmiki and many others lived a 'simple' life (according to the stories at least) but they did not renounce everything.
They wrote on every aspect of human life as it was lived 'in' society. They wrote their thoughts on all four : dharma, artha, kama and moksha. Even if you do not care about the last, one of the main message from the epics seems to be that "artha (pursuit of wealth) and kama (pleasure) are fine provided it is acquired by dharma".
I am not chiding mahavira or buddha. They were incredible people. My point is one must look at the effect of their religion as a whole on society and what it emphasizes on.
I too have a question regarding the comment about Advaita Vedanta (and religion in general): When you say "many of the claims of Advaita Vedantism are neither verifiable nor falsifiable", what claims do you mean? In my understanding, the philosophy propounded in Advaita is based on the experience of people (Shankara, for one) who practiced various things and found these results. And the whole claim is that anyone else who practices these things as prescribed can verify the claims for themselves. I believe there are people in history who claim to have followed Shankara's line of reasoning and verified these ideas through their own experience.
In that context, since you said many things are "neither verifiable or falsifiable", does that mean you actually did follow these practices/line of reasoning as prescribed and found that things are not as Advaitic texts say? If you did, that is remarkable, of course. From your wording, I am assuming you did not (you can correct me). Again, I don't know what Deepak Chopra says on Advaita and whether or not he understands Advaita, but he is not the authority people follow in the subject.
To continue my point with a toy-example from science: there might have been people who lived in, say, 1916, who said "Look at this fellow, Mr. Einstein; he performs some sort of mathematical jugglery and comes up with this preposterous idea that space and time get stretched, etc. etc. Plain bullshit, if you ask me!" This opinion, while seemingly reasonable, cannot be trusted (and by now, can indeed be shown to be wrong) because the person did not go through Einstein's reasoning, mathematics, etc to verify/falsify relativity.
In my opinion, most of us do not really understand scientific theories/findings any more than we understand religious philosophy; we just follow the respective leaders in the field and trust their judgement (that is all we can do, since we don't have the time and energy and probably ability to go and verify calculations or practice sadhanas for ourselves). And the claim of Advaita, I believe, is that it's core ideas are every bit as scientific (and verifiable etc) as science itself; i. e., they describe reality and not somebody's fancies. If we really are interested in finding out whether or not these claims are true, the sensible thing to do would be to practice and find out for ourselves. Until we do so, our opinions (favorable or unfavorable) will be just prejudices and nothing more. It is illogical to follow modern scientists' opinion on Advaita, the same way it would be to follow Shankara's opinion on General Relativity.
@Karthikeyan, hey, thanks, I am doing well. :) I hope you are doing fine too. Thanks for your detailed comments. While I had a lengthy discussion/argument along the same lines with some of my friends on Facebook (Anvesh Reddy, Aditya Arvind, and Anand Venkataraman), I will reply to you points here:
- Thanks for acknowledging that many of the claims of Advaita Vedantism (AV) being "bullshit", when viewed from an objective standpoint (as in, neither verifiable nor falsifiable).
- I agree with you that Jaina-Buddhism (JB) make many bullshit claims too, especially the claims about souls, reincarnation, etc. IMHO, bullshit is bullshit, irrespective of which religion (or indeed, whichever source) it originates from. That said, from my understanding, such bullshit is not "central" to JB as is for AV. For example, Buddhism is primarily concerned with means for reducing mental suffering and increasing happiness, while Jainism is primarily concerned with means of right living, both for the individual and society.
- I disagree that all of JB and AV are bullshit. While I do not know of any claims of AV that have been objectively verified, some of they key claims of JB have indeed been validated/verified objectively. For example, two key claims/doctrines of Jainism - Ahimsa and Anekantavaada - have been validated from a sociological and political scientific viewpoint to be integral to building a peaceful society (e.g, right to non-violent dissent, freedom of expression, and human rights in general). And many of the key claims of the Buddha regarding the functioning of the mind have been verified/validated by recent groundbreaking research in psychology, neurology, cognitive science, and brain biochemistry - collectively increasingly known as the "science of the mind". Just as an example, here is an incredibly fascinating scientific book that I am reading: Buddha's Brain http://amzn.to/1yl7gdy
- I did not claim that JB are "exemplary". I just pointed out where these religions stand with respect to objective evidence says. That said, AV places a high premium on subjective experience (in fact, it derives this property from JB itself!). I do not deny that subjective experience is important for life. Nor do I claim that all bullshitting is "bad". Some bullshits can be "beautiful", while some other bullshits can yield new objective understanding in due course. But, to pretend as if bullshit is objective truth is to live in denial. Instead, I prefer to call a spade a spade. :)
- Reg. Vedas, I do not contend that they are "completely a ritual text", just "primarily". Since Vedic Brahminism (VB) was/is a ritualistic and polytheistic religion, some of the Vedas (at least parts of them) were meant to be the manuals for those rituals. And I also do not think it is "premature" - Sanskrit is simply rich with polyvalent terms. Furthermore, the Vedas are written in poetic form - creating multiple interpretations for the same words is one of the beauties of poetry! :)
@Karthikeyan, (Contd.)
- Yes, I agree that JB seemed to emphasize the monastic life to much, especially Jainism. Buddhism, however, is split on this issue. Different schools of Buddhism take different views - Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Clearly, since Buddhism survives and thrives in eastern Asia shows that monasticism is not entirely essential for that religion.
- I disagree that the Upanishads predate JB in toto. The most probable evidence suggests that Jainism predates even VB, while the writing of these highly philosophical texts was more or less concomitant with the birth of Buddhism. But yes, I agree with you that the theists of VB and its descendant theistic Hindu religions were influenced by the shramans, and found their own "middle-ground" between extreme asceticism and "worldly life". The Buddha did pretty much the same thing, although in an atheistic fashion.
- Again, it is not a question of "chiding" individual contributors to religions. My focus is on what the objective evidence says. :)
@Aditya,
I assume this is Aditya Arvind from Facebook! We already discussed your questions. Thanks for your comments though! :)
@A.K.K
Thanks for your patient reading and comments for many of my points. I have few more thoughts based on your responses.
"Thanks for acknowledging that many of the claims of Advaita Vedantism (AV) being "bullshit", when viewed from an objective standpoint (as in, neither verifiable nor falsifiable)."
- I do not claim they are bull shit unconditionally. But conditional on the position that materialistic reductionism is the closest to the truth, I think they are BS. Some parts of buddhism like anatta theory may be reconcilable with materialism which I agree with.
You have said that these dharmic positions are not objective. I am not denying it. But I have trouble with 'objectivity itself'.
Regarding the falsifiability(or testability) notion of Karl Popper for a scientific theory: I have not been reading much on this. I do have an issue with this though.
Let us consider evolution. Given the present observations (overwhelming evidence from genetics+molecular biology etc..) , do you think the main evolutionary principle (of natural selection) is falsifiable today ? Does it mean it is unconditionally true from 2014 onwards ?
Can a theory be falsifiable for some time and after a point be not falsifiable? Can you tell me one falsifiability criterion that will force people to consider some other alternative to the core principle of natural selection itself?
This question was famously posed by Karl Popper himself and for a while he was worried and after that some biologists told him if they found a fossil of a rabbit from a different age much earlier than the age of rabbits under current belief, one has to revisit the evolutionary branches and make a radical modification. This seemed fair to me.
But the answer is not satisfactory. This falsifiability criterion can falsify the current evolutionary branching process we have. But it will not falsify the core theory of evolution itself -like natural selection or the principle that one species evolves from others.
Can you state a falsifiability criterion for the whole thing to be overturned? If you cannot what does that mean? Surely evolution is not unscientific. Then what does it mean for objectivity.
It seems like a theory usually has various propositions and validity of a theory has to be worked out at various levels of granularity. It seems that falsifiability may not work at every level of granularity . I may be completely wrong in this. May be it is completely falsifiable. But let me know about your opinions on this. I would like to understand these issues myself. I admit I have not given it such a deep thought. But it does disturb me.
Your thoughts welcome.
I had to split my comments again :) Sorry.
If you want a falsifiability criterion for advaita, it is difficult because it would mean falsifying existence of free will in some way in my opinion (at least it is intimately related). As far as my knowledge goes, the other position that 'there is no free will' is not yet falsifiable either. The only argument I have heard from materialistic reductionism (current standard) is that you can't define free will !
Of course within the realm of materialistic theories you cannot search for a non-causal entity outside
of material universe that can give rise to free will.
If there is no such thing, I guess it can be shown that there is no free will. Thats why I accept that all those are bull shit conditional on materialistic reductionism.But that is not a falsifiability criterion.
The only argument which is sensible is that there has been no consensus on observations that support free will so far. So in a crude bayesian sense the other position is more valid. How much more ? I don't know. I have another trouble with applying Bayesian thinking to cutting edge science (But thats another issue which we can safely neglect here).
By the way, there are some neurologists who are slightly on the free will side when you consider known evidences about NDEs, OBEs - near death/out of body experiences. By the way, if you did not know, NDEs and OBEs are perfectly verifiable and are established. But what they mean for the free will question is not clear. Some ppl contend that materialism is sufficient to explain these. But it is not clear yet.
I feel after some reading that this is a thorny question. If it is so obvious, do you think esteemed scientists like Roger Penrose (read http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188) would even think about theories beyond the current consensus of materialism for consciousness? Note that, I am not proposing his theory is correct or anything. All I am saying is that he acknowledges that there is a problem when it comes to consciousness+free will which is my position. I guess in "only this" I am "against" the current consensus. But I believe I can justify myself.
Further, another eminent scientist Erwin Schroedinger predicted lots of characteristics about DNA before its discovery in this :http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf.
Please look at the last section. You may say that he was sold to advaita and upanishads and it was very subjective. But, he was very well sane during this speech and it was the same speech that predicted the existence of a genetic code before the DNA discovery. In fact his famous quote goes something like: "I agree that life happened by chance but consciousness is different. In fact it is fundamental." - You can search for this quote in some book of his. By the way, this guy was central to QMech as we know it.
Please do not think that I do not support evolution. I very much do. Totally life happened by chance and evolved through natural selection starting from self-replicating units. I agree. But my problem is when I look back at falsifiability I have a problem with it in terms of evolution itself first. Another issue is not everything is so simple with 'objectivity' particularly when you deal with free will questions which is really the central issue in advaita. It starts and ends with it and nothing beyond. Thats the problem :)
So I feel these world views provide alternate suggestions as to what reality could be like. And in my opinion upanishads espoused this notion of a singular self. There is no borrowing from buddhism here because buddhist position is no-self (anatta). You may say it has been borrowed from shramans. Again here in jainism, there is no singular self but many 'selves'. But between them they have covered all the ground there is to cover :)
So if you look at the philosophy, upanishads (the oldest)+ raamayana +mahabharata came before even jainism. Even if you say upanishads came late, the thinking is already found in certain parts of vedas + and certainly in mahabharata (not the Gita. Even the main text).
And it is totally OK to have these ideas going around in a scientific community. Of course, one has to be honest and objective (I mean it differently from falsifiability) unlike Deepak Chopra. But to dispose these things as meaningless..... at least the bell has not tolled yet !
Further, look like the celebrated 'atheist' Sam Harris seems to argue that buddhist +advaitic standpoints are very commensurate with reality :)
Buddhism has the position of no self. Advaita says there is not self too but a universal one. I feel there is a subtle but important difference or I may be mistaken.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/taming-the-mind
Post a Comment