Hinduism is a "religion" that prides on itself being open. So much so that the words Hinduism and religion don't go hand in hand even on a simple sentence. Hinduism is more like an open university, where you decide the portions, and then you write the exam, and on the basis of your portions and performance, you are graded. This fact has had a multitude of consequences over the years. From the merging of the Aryan and the Aryo-Dravidian deities into a common "sampradaya" to even having open culture merging such as the entry of Thulukka Naachiyaar in the Srirangam temple premises, from having atheist philosophers such as Jabali in the court of Rama to the discussions on Quora about how atheism is an integral part of Hinduism, one can say confidently that Hinduism has seen it and done it all. You have stories which say that the mother is the most important person in one's life (Adi Shankaracharya), some which put the father above everyone else (Parasurama), some which put the spouse at the top (Gautama-Ahalya, Rukmini-Krishna), and sometimes even the public above any individual (Rama in the Uttara Kanda). But what we need to take home from all this is how every situation is relative, and we need to use our head to determine what really matters at that point in time.
So what most people do is, discuss Hinduism as a path that shows multiple ways, and on a top level discuss these routes. This is something I have seen especially on Quora, where people, dare I say, with a tilt of atheism, conveniently use the Hinduism framework of being open to various preferences, to denounce the idea of ritualism. They say, Hinduism is open to everybody, rituals are for buggers, and I would like to take that piece of the cake which has the cream alone. Firstly, before I continue, let me discuss the idea of atheism in Hinduism. As my guru (Arun Ayyar) once told me, atheism in Hinduism is not the same as classical Abrahamic definition of atheism. A Hindu could be an Astika, or a Nastika. Asti in Sanskrit means "there is". Astika in Sanskrit means one who believes in existence, while Nastika doesn't believe in existence. The only thing that connects the whole idea of Sanatana Dharma, possibly the only thing that one could use to pin it down as a religion, is the set of prescriptions which are usually to be followed, which we call the Vedas or the Shruthi. The Astika is one, who believes in the existence of the supremacy of the Vedas, while the Nastika doesn't. Of course, like many of my peers have discussed on Quora, the Sanatana Dharma doesn't reject the Nastikas, but the non-believer tag is just passed on to them. These very Vedas, which the Sanatana Dharma propagates, talk about ritualism. That was one of the main reasons behind Gautama Buddha rejected the Vedas.
I have gone on to discuss a lot of stuff, but have not really arrived at the point I'm trying to make here. Sanatana Dharma tries to ensure a spiritual well-being for everybody, and that comes from a peace of mind. This peace of mind can be obtained from only a conducive mind. The conducive mind comes from actions that make the surroundings conducive for the mind to be well. The conducive mind can't be found at a workplace where you are surrounded by tension, neither can it be found at a hyperactive state jumping to loud music, it needs that calm, the calm you get over meditation, the same calm you get over a small pooja at your place, the calm you get over a jog, or maybe over a session of yoga, or pranayama. The above line juggles between Karma, Bhakti and Gnana Yogas in a very subtle manner, you can say what is what clearly. Rituals are not to specifically signify anything. They are just a methodology by which people periodically refresh themselves, renew that calm in them, and with a sense of rejuvenation go on with their lives. That was the point behind the various homams, yagnas, the point behind the poojas, and the festivals, where people came together, spent some happy time together, a day of recharging. As someone who does believe in the metaphysical (note I use the word metaphysical, and not supernatural, because I believe that most of this is scientifically explicable, only not so by the science known today), I do believe that the words said, the mantras spoken make sense, and there is a positive vibration they produce, but that's not something I'd thrust upon you.
Many people I know confuse customs for rituals. Dowry is a custom, a pooja is a ritual, replenishing your son-in-law's place with goodies over every festival is a custom, celebrating the pooja with a small prayer and a few mantras is a ritual, anything involving human beings is a custom, anything involving you and your spiritual well-being is a ritual. Customs are man-made, rituals too are partly, but only partly, since the core of the rituals, the inner part of the cake, is baked in the Vedas, which was just heard, the sound of Nature to put it exotically. Customs might cause joy or pain, rituals can only cause joy. While North India seems confused between its rituals and customs, South India has gone on to denounce both with great aplomb, the result being we, as a country, do not really know what is ours, and what was thrust upon us. The confusion has existed since the time of the Buddha. The Buddha, who for one, was able to take that philosophical path which is given in Hinduism, the Gnana Yoga, but his fault, in my opinion, was assuming that everyone could do the same. It took him a chariot ride to decide that he didn't want his parents, his wife, his child anymore, all he wanted was salvation. We can't even ride chariots anymore. As much the Gnana Yoga got him his much wanted salvation, he denounced the Bhakti Yoga, which he was not right in doing, purely because of lack of experience. The best path in my opinion was that of Adi Shankaracharya, who in spite of being a Gnana Yogi, recommended the Bhakti Yoga to the common man, because of the difficulty the Gnana Yoga poses. Not only does Adi Shankara denounce the ritualistic Mandana Misra on a one-on-one, who later becomes one of Shankara's prime disciples,the famed Sureshvaracharya, and establishes the Shankara Math at Sringeri, eventually he also finishes his debate with the message that as much as Gnana is important, it is useless without the conducive mind to understand that, the idea of a Saranagati, which is where the importance of Bhakti comes in.
So, there goes, understanding what we follow is important, to expand brackets so that we fit in them is also important, but what is more important is to understand what those brackets enclose, and why they enclose them. One needn't be ritualistic, but it is useless to put yourself in the Hindu bracket, and not be able to even try to appreciate what the idea of these rituals is.
So what most people do is, discuss Hinduism as a path that shows multiple ways, and on a top level discuss these routes. This is something I have seen especially on Quora, where people, dare I say, with a tilt of atheism, conveniently use the Hinduism framework of being open to various preferences, to denounce the idea of ritualism. They say, Hinduism is open to everybody, rituals are for buggers, and I would like to take that piece of the cake which has the cream alone. Firstly, before I continue, let me discuss the idea of atheism in Hinduism. As my guru (Arun Ayyar) once told me, atheism in Hinduism is not the same as classical Abrahamic definition of atheism. A Hindu could be an Astika, or a Nastika. Asti in Sanskrit means "there is". Astika in Sanskrit means one who believes in existence, while Nastika doesn't believe in existence. The only thing that connects the whole idea of Sanatana Dharma, possibly the only thing that one could use to pin it down as a religion, is the set of prescriptions which are usually to be followed, which we call the Vedas or the Shruthi. The Astika is one, who believes in the existence of the supremacy of the Vedas, while the Nastika doesn't. Of course, like many of my peers have discussed on Quora, the Sanatana Dharma doesn't reject the Nastikas, but the non-believer tag is just passed on to them. These very Vedas, which the Sanatana Dharma propagates, talk about ritualism. That was one of the main reasons behind Gautama Buddha rejected the Vedas.
I have gone on to discuss a lot of stuff, but have not really arrived at the point I'm trying to make here. Sanatana Dharma tries to ensure a spiritual well-being for everybody, and that comes from a peace of mind. This peace of mind can be obtained from only a conducive mind. The conducive mind comes from actions that make the surroundings conducive for the mind to be well. The conducive mind can't be found at a workplace where you are surrounded by tension, neither can it be found at a hyperactive state jumping to loud music, it needs that calm, the calm you get over meditation, the same calm you get over a small pooja at your place, the calm you get over a jog, or maybe over a session of yoga, or pranayama. The above line juggles between Karma, Bhakti and Gnana Yogas in a very subtle manner, you can say what is what clearly. Rituals are not to specifically signify anything. They are just a methodology by which people periodically refresh themselves, renew that calm in them, and with a sense of rejuvenation go on with their lives. That was the point behind the various homams, yagnas, the point behind the poojas, and the festivals, where people came together, spent some happy time together, a day of recharging. As someone who does believe in the metaphysical (note I use the word metaphysical, and not supernatural, because I believe that most of this is scientifically explicable, only not so by the science known today), I do believe that the words said, the mantras spoken make sense, and there is a positive vibration they produce, but that's not something I'd thrust upon you.
Many people I know confuse customs for rituals. Dowry is a custom, a pooja is a ritual, replenishing your son-in-law's place with goodies over every festival is a custom, celebrating the pooja with a small prayer and a few mantras is a ritual, anything involving human beings is a custom, anything involving you and your spiritual well-being is a ritual. Customs are man-made, rituals too are partly, but only partly, since the core of the rituals, the inner part of the cake, is baked in the Vedas, which was just heard, the sound of Nature to put it exotically. Customs might cause joy or pain, rituals can only cause joy. While North India seems confused between its rituals and customs, South India has gone on to denounce both with great aplomb, the result being we, as a country, do not really know what is ours, and what was thrust upon us. The confusion has existed since the time of the Buddha. The Buddha, who for one, was able to take that philosophical path which is given in Hinduism, the Gnana Yoga, but his fault, in my opinion, was assuming that everyone could do the same. It took him a chariot ride to decide that he didn't want his parents, his wife, his child anymore, all he wanted was salvation. We can't even ride chariots anymore. As much the Gnana Yoga got him his much wanted salvation, he denounced the Bhakti Yoga, which he was not right in doing, purely because of lack of experience. The best path in my opinion was that of Adi Shankaracharya, who in spite of being a Gnana Yogi, recommended the Bhakti Yoga to the common man, because of the difficulty the Gnana Yoga poses. Not only does Adi Shankara denounce the ritualistic Mandana Misra on a one-on-one, who later becomes one of Shankara's prime disciples,the famed Sureshvaracharya, and establishes the Shankara Math at Sringeri, eventually he also finishes his debate with the message that as much as Gnana is important, it is useless without the conducive mind to understand that, the idea of a Saranagati, which is where the importance of Bhakti comes in.
So, there goes, understanding what we follow is important, to expand brackets so that we fit in them is also important, but what is more important is to understand what those brackets enclose, and why they enclose them. One needn't be ritualistic, but it is useless to put yourself in the Hindu bracket, and not be able to even try to appreciate what the idea of these rituals is.
No comments:
Post a Comment