The current post is an adaptation of a post I wrote in December 2012 on Rajiv Malhotra’s discussion forum. The context was the following video of a NRI Hindu youth conference, presided over by Rajiv Malhotra, in which a Brahma Kumari representative, when asked about the relevance of a Hindu religious identity, given that we are all ‘children of God,’ offered the typical neo-Hindu, neo-Vedanta answer of the human identity being that of a soul whose religion is peace.
Summary of the issue
Watch the video for the full discussion (from 18.15), of which I provide here a summary:
The issue raised by a questioner was that Hindu identity is important at the surface level but one should not be too stuck up on it. Just as all (gold) ornaments are ultimate gold, as Hinduism itself teaches, when one goes deeper, the Hindu identity becomes irrelevant.
Rajiv’s answer was that the oneness taught in Advaita is true at a certain level of consciousness, at which there would be no duality, no clash between gods and demons, etc. But we are not at that level. In the world in which we live, there is difference between dharma and adharma, there is karma (action and accountability) and duality, even if it is all mithya and māyā in an ultimate sense. It is typical of Indians that when it comes to their individual welfare they are very conscious of their self-identity. They want the best deal for themselves. But when they are asked to defend the dharma, they raise issues about the ultimate reality of identity. Therefore, Rajiv concluded, if you want to advocate a dharma without identity, then you should first give up your personal identity (possessions, etc.) and become a sannyāsin.
Rajiv was corrected here by another member of the panel that the interrogator was not belittling the importance of the Hindu identity but stating that we cannot push it too far and need to realize that we are all ultimately ‘children of God.’
At this point the Brahma Kumari lady stepped in and said that the true identity crisis is about the ‘I’. When one says that ‘I am Hindu’ or ‘I am Muslim’ or ‘I am Christian,’ and so on, the ‘I’ refers in reality to the soul and its dharma is peace. But when this identity is occluded by body consciousness i.e. one thinks of the ‘I’ as the body rather than the soul, then all religions begin. Everybody i.e. people of all religions want peace.
Rajiv countered this by stating that in Hindu thought there is adhyātma which teaches you to deconstruct the self, give up all worldly identities, etc. But there is also the laukika – the social world. Dharma is both. You are an adhyātmika person in a laukika world and so you also have to live according to the time, place and context. While the inner quest may be to become free of all identities, there is also a role to play in the outer world.
The inner quest is about the discovery of the capital ‘I’ but there is also the lowercase ‘i’ which is the identity in the socio-political world. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the latter and not the former, about which a lot of discussions were already taking place. There is adhyātma–vidyā which you should practise in private and laukika–vidyā for living in the world as a Hindu.
There is much to be said about this whole issue and I will write more in other posts to elaborate on matters that I have briefly touched here. What follows is my reflection on the foregoing discussion which I posted in December 2012. While Rajiv had connected the problem of modern Hindu spiritualism, indifferent to a socio-political identity rooted in the mundane world, with contemporary gurus, I have traced its genealogy to Vivekananda.
My Post
This debate is interesting because it gets at the core of what is called neo-Hinduism. I am also alluding here to the recent post where Rajiv mentioned that the attacks on Being Different by Rambachan and so on, parallel the attacks on Vivekananda. I approach this issue with mixed feelings for while I do support Rajiv’s cause, I think Vivekananda as the architect of neo-Hinduism is at least partially responsible for the confusion caused by the ‘guru movements’. Let me explain how.
(1) I think the BK lady articulated what has now become the grand narrative of modern Hinduism. Its origin lies in the so-called Schopenhauerian ethic which has influenced many Vedantic scholars, including Vivekananda. In the ‘Philosophy of the Upaniṣads,’ Paul Deussen, one of Schopenhauer’s disciples, remarks along these lines:
The Bible teaches that we must love our neighbour. But why should we? Because, the Upaniṣads say, your neighbour is your own self.
He thus saw the Upaniṣads as complementing the Bible. What impressed Deussen about the Upaniṣads is that unlike the Bible which explains all moral commands as God’s will, they offered a philosophy for social ethic.
(2) This has now become also the position of Vedanta. The Christian critique of Vedanta is that it is too selfish in that one strives for one’s own self-realization and does not care about the world. Intellectuals such as Vivekananda used the Schopenhauerian ethic to address this problem. To be Brahman means to realise that everything including oneself is Brahman and thus to serve the world as Brahman. From the former realisation proceeds the latter action. This has unfortunately become the modern self-understanding of Hinduism. To be a Hindu means, ironically, to know that one is not in fact a Hindu but an individual soul and through this self-realisation serve the world as a manifestation of the universal soul since the individual and universal soul are one.
(3) Based on my reading of Vivekananda’s speeches, I think that he not only endorsed but was probably one of the authors of this narrative. Furthermore, he (or his followers) have wrongly claimed this view to be that of Śaṅkara (see The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas by Anantanand Rambachan) which I have attempted to differentiate below. I do realise that many people on this forum have the utmost reverence for Vivekananda and so I would like to clarify that my intention is neither to give offence nor to show disrespect. Neither is my distinction between Vivekananda and Śaṅkara’s ideas based on the same reason as Rambachan’s, who takes issue with Vivekananda’s privileging of mystical experience over scriptural authority. I don’t think even Rambachan would disagree with this narrative as such, only he would like it to be based rationally on scripture than on one’s own mystical experience.
(4) I completely agree with and appreciate Rajiv’s attempt to formulate a distinctive laukika Hindu identity instead of this warm and fuzzy spiritualism that dominates Hindu thought today. In this endeavour it would be useful to understand how Śaṅkara’s views differ from Vivekananda’s. In the Adhyāsa-bhāṣya, which is the introduction to his Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya, Śaṅkara has distinguished between pramāṇa-prameya-vyavahāra which is the pre-reflective fight-or-flight kind of responses common to all living creatures including humans, and a reflective, identity-based śāstriya-vyavahāra which is specific to humans. The identities under consideration in Śaṅkara’s time were the four varṇas and āśramas. Today the identity for which we have to establish a śāstriya-vyavahāra is Hindu.
(5) Of course, Śaṅkara was categorical that jñāna is superior to karma and mokṣa is realised only through jñāna. Śāstriya-vyavahāra, based as it is on worldly identities, is also a form of avidyā but that does not mean, as Arjuna finds out in the Gītā, that everyone is eligible for jñāna. Every living being automatically undertakes the path of karma but only a privileged few can tread the path of jñāna.
Śaṅkara explains in his Gītā-bhāṣya that the pravṛtti-dharma assigned to varṇas and āśramas is relatively inferior and meant for worldly and heavenly prosperity only, but when it is selflessly performed, it leads to sattva-śuddhi. This sattva–śuddhi makes one eligible for nivṛtti-dharma, i.e., the path of jñāna leading to mokṣa. This serial ordering of pravṛtti and nivṛtti is relevant even today, only the pravṛtti-dharma that addressed varṇa and āśrama identities in the traditional world needs reinterpretation and readjustment to address a Hindu identity for the modern world [since it is the Hindu identity which dominates our consciousness today than membership of a varṇa and āśrama].
(6) Contrary to Śaṅkara’s view, Vivekananda and contemporary Hindu intellectuals, including the BK lady, see nivṛtti as the basis for an ethical pravṛtti. This is following the Christian model where the will of God is seen as the basis of worldly ethics. All that the modern Hindus did was to replace God’s will with nivṛtti and claimed, following Deussen and such-like, that it is a more appropriate basis for morality and therefore superior to Western religions. But this has only Christianised us and made us more susceptible to digestion.
In Śaṅkara’s model this order is reversed. Pravṛtti has its basis in the śāstras and not in nivṛtti. In our case that means we must first have a śāstric, i.e., a worldly understanding of a Hindu identity that is reflective and scholarly, and selflessly profess this meaning in everyday life. This way we attain sattva-śuddhi and then, and only then, do we become eligible to make the idealistic claim that Hindu identity is only another form of ignorance and move beyond it to realise ourselves as the soul or whatever else.
(7) Just as colonialism encouraged certain interpretations of varṇa/jāti, so did it encourage an understanding of religion as selfless service to humanity based on a non-denominational, divine self-realisation, and a corresponding disregard towards the intellectual interpretation of tradition. Vivekananda was as much a victim of this shift for he dismissed, as did Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the argumentative aspect of Vedānta as ‘intellectual gymnastics.’ Such thinking has caused great harm to the tradition and has produced the current crop of anti-intellectual gurus and mātās.
But there is nothing hypocritical about them performing the activities Rajiv mentions. When you take their model of religion into consideration, as explained above, it makes perfect sense. So my answer to Rajiv’s question [which I assume now he has made at some point in the video] regarding the current confusion among Hindus, ‘where did this come from, and who is accountable for this?’ would be not the gurus but this anti-intellectual paradigm that they follow. But it is a paradigm that has been endorsed and promoted not just by ordinary gurus but by the who’s who of our tradition. So it is going to be a real uphill struggle fighting against it. We can take comfort, however, in that we have allies in our past.
Rajiv’s comment on my post
First I agree with Ashay that SV co-founded modern Hinduism, which its critics call neo-Hinduism. This had many good and bad things in it. Sameness was one of its curses that we live with today. This was due to SV and others having difference anxiety from below. But it also did many good things – unifying various diverse schools, modernizing it in line with new science and other developments, which is not anything wrong and our tradition calls for this evolution.
There has been at least a dozen such “new” movements in our history, including several within Vedanta itself. Please Note: Being Different (BD) unifies dharmas without also including Abrahamic religions in the same fold. This is where the pioneers failed last time around. In unifying Hinduism, the arguments became too generic and could not differentiate other religions. If you get this point, you will appreciate why the BD project is so challenging to do and why BD can make a big difference if it is understood: How to show unity of dharma in a manner such that it shows difference with Abrahamic faiths?
But there is a second truth that I am concerned about. Rambachan is a member of a school of social constructivism that is basically undermining Hinduism in total. Not Rambachan himself is not rejecting Hinduism in total, but those who use the arguments and base established by this school end up claiming that: Hinduism = Hindu Nationalism = Fascism = Exploitation of minorities, dalits, etc. I am in the middle of writing a short book arguing against this school that was started by western Indologists and now is very popular amongst many Indians. These two truths correspond to two camps and we must fight both.
Truth and Falsity 
The volume of Vivekananda’s works is so huge & varied, it would be difficult to summarize all his works into a single teaching. Perhaps, i would say Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda taught based on their audience. It is told by the RK Ashram swamis that SV taught panini grammar on his last day. We should also note the extensive work done by the publications wing of RK Ashram – which does try to cover all vedantic schools of thought.
I would like you to describe on this statement: “Based on my reading of Vivekananda’s speeches, I think that he not only endorsed but was probably one of the authors of this narrative.”
In which of his speeches does he give this narrative? I am quite curious to read that.
Thanks,
Dwaraka
LikeLike
I will have to check up on it. I wrote this blog in 2012 when I was reading Vivekananda’s works. Its been a while since I gave them up. By “narrative” I am referring to the “tat-tvam-asi” ethic and the general idea that the paramarthika identity of the self as brahman should inform our engagement in vyavahara. This view should be evident in most of his works.
Having said that, it is not proper to criticise so great a figure as Vivekananda so lightly. I will have to write a proper critique which I might do sometime later in life.
LikeLike
Thank you very much.
Let me try diving into some of his earlier speeches. Looking forward to your further work in this regard.
LikeLike
Sir, I have copy pasted below an excerpt from Swami Vivekananda’s writing, it doesn’t agree with your view that Swamiji insisted on maintaining the identity with brahman literally even while dealing with worldly affairs.
“If the whole nation practices and follows the path of Moksha, that is well and good; but is that possible? Without enjoyment, renunciation can never come; first enjoy and then you can renounce. Otherwise, if the whole nation, all of a sudden, takes up Sannyâsa, it does not gain what it desires, but it loses what it had into the bargain —the bird in the hand is fled, nor is that in the bush caught. When, in the heyday of Buddhistic supremacy, thousands of Sannyâsins lived in every monastery, then it was that the country was just on the verge of its ruin! The Bauddhas, the Christians, the Mussulmans, and the Jains prescribe, in their folly, the same law and the same rule for all. That is a great mistake; education, habits, customs, laws, and rules should be different for different men and nations, in conformity with their difference of temperament. What will it avail, if one tries to make them all uniform by compulsion? The Bauddhas declared, “Nothing is more desirable in life than Moksha; whoever you are, come one and all to take it.” I ask, “Is that ever possible?” “You are a householder, you must not concern yourself much with things of that sort: you do your Svadharma (natural duty)” —thus say the Hindu scriptures. Exactly so! He who cannot leap one foot, is going to jump across the ocean to Lankâ in one bound! Is it reason? You cannot feed your own family or dole out food to two of your fellow-men, you cannot do even an ordinary piece of work for the common good, in harmony with others —and you are running after Mukti! The Hindu scriptures say, “No doubt, Moksha is far superior to Dharma; but Dharma should be finished first of all”. The Bauddhas were confounded just there and brought about all sorts of mischief. Non-injury is right; “Resist not evil” is a great thing —these are indeed grand principles; but the scriptures say, “Thou art a householder; if anyone smites thee on thy cheek, and thou dost not return him an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, thou wilt verily be a sinner.” Manu says, “When one has come to kill you, there is no sin in killing him, even though he be a Brâhmin” (Manu, VIII. 350). This is very true, and this is a thing which should not be forgotten. Heroes only enjoy the world. Show your heroism; apply, according to circumstances, the fourfold political maxims of conciliation, bribery, sowing dissensions, and open war, to win over your adversary and enjoy the world —then you will be Dhârmika (righteous). Otherwise, you live a disgraceful life if you pocket your insults when you are kicked and trodden down by anyone who takes it into his head to do so; your life is a veritable hell here, and so is the life hereafter. This is what the Shastras say. Do your Svadharma —this is truth, the truth of truths.”
LikeLike
Thanks Vinay, for sharing this info about Swami Vivekananda. But then how do we square this idea with the tat-tvam-asi ethic? And what about his view in his Chicago speech that “We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true”? That does not agree with what he has said here about other religions.
What Swamiji is saying here is that we must act in the world before we become seekers of moksa. That is fine and that we must act in the world according to svadharma and so on, but is he saying that we must practice svadharma as the sastras have defined it? For example, the sastras address a world characterised by social hierarchy while the Indian constitution based on European liberal thought is committed to social equality. Which way would Swamiji turn to understand the specifics of svadharma?
LikeLike
“Never approach anything except as God; for if we do, we see evil, because we throw a veil of delusion over what we look at, and then we see evil. Get free from these illusions. Be blessed. Freedom is to lose all illusions.”
(Retreat given at the Thousand Island Park,
USA. July 5, 1895. Complete Works, 7.34.)
The quote clearly supports your claim that Swamiji vouched for tat tvam asi ethics, as you call it. But Sir, it was told to a select few, who were his ardent followers and spiritual aspirants, that too in an event closed for general public. What I’m trying to say is that Swamiji’s message depends on who its recepient is and what their temperament is like. Similar teachings can also be found in his works Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, I think. But they are also in my opinion meant for spiritual aspirants.
As as far as Swamiji’s comment on other religions mentioned in my previous post is concerned, I think there he is only pointing out deficiencies in other religions, so it is more like saying that they are incomplete and doesn’t mean he is rejecting them as false. He repeatedly says that essentials of all religions are same, which is belief in a superior being- God. (even in case of Buddhism and jainism, he maintains that though they do not believe in God, their whole religion is about “evolving God out of man”.). In that sense, he accepts all religions as true. Nevertheless, he argues that Hinduism is most universal in its appeal, further, he says that “Advaita is the last word in religion”. Other religions too, according to him are moving towards the same truth, but in their own paths.
About svadharma, I think he is using it in the context of chatur ashrama dharma and not with respect to varna or jati (which is the basis of hierarchy).
However, I would like to say a few things about his ideas on hierarchy. He himself doesn’t explicitly say that hierarchy is inherent in world, but he believed that there can be no creation without variation. My inference from this is that, when there is variation there has to be some or the other form of hierarchy, so may be he indirectly accepted hierarchy. But he opposed birth-based caste system. He also opposed special privileges even for brahmins. He believed that society should give every individual, freedom to pursue his interests, any special privileges would be hindrance to that freedom. So I think, his idea of hierarchy was fluid, where anyone could rise or fall based on his capabilities.
Moreover, he said that smritis (I’m assuming that smritis and shashtras are same) must be updated from time to time to address changing circumstances. So, probably he would not agree that everything mentioned in smritis holds good in the present time.
To conclude, I think, his call for providing freedom to individuals to pursue their interests should be seen as creating equality of opportunity for all.
LikeLike
Dear Vinay, it is very nice that you can pull out the exact quotations from Swamiji’s voluminous works. And, you are very correct when you say that Swamiji’s talks should be understood specifically keeping the audience in mind.
I too fully understand that the whole of Swamiji’s teachings can’t be summarized in a single sentence, or concept. One of my friends who has read the Complete Works several times used to describe Swamiji as “ananta bhaavamaya vivekananda” – quite an apt description.
However, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees (or even, leaves – if i may say so).
First, Swamiji didn’t come from the Indian traditional way of schooling – although he might have later thoroughly studied all relevant shastras (e.g: he has explained Patanjali’s yoga sutras in detail ; he was able to converse/debate in sanskrit in various royal courts etc.)
Second, Swamiji’s way of working – for most part – was to reestablish the lost national character. Most of his talks were to inspire the youth towards character building, and eventually nation building. These can be categorized as the “movement” type of work. Obviously, the main emphasis in this work is not to debate about a specific way of interpretation of any shastras. It is more to do with taking up some appropriate part of the shastras – and try to universalize that concept. As you have yourself told – when it comes to spirituality related concepts – Swamiji gave more importance to “advaita” – as in accepting the supremacy of that philosophy – rather than debating among the pundits to establish its supremacy (or find out otherwise). Of course, probably given his situation it wasn’t the need of the hour to get busy in the details of hair-splitting reason and logic. What was more urgent was the revival of the masses.
Third, we can see time and again that Sri Ramakrishna (and even Swami Vivekananda) emphasized more on spiritual sadhana, rather than shastra adhyayana. The most popular story of Sri M (Masterji) getting thrashed (in his own words) from Sri Ramakrishna for displaying his textual authority. Another story of the vyakarana-pundit getting drowned while crossing the river, whereas the boatman saving himself by knowing how to swim – gives more importance to spiritual practice in comparison to “mere” scriptural study.
The last point above – has been, is being, and forever will be – used by pop guru-figures of the day to de-emphasize the study and analysis of shastras. (My usage of guru-figures is intentional here). So, we do see that many books being published by the RK Mutt, however, there are no rigorous debates visible to the public – so as to kindle an interest to study, analyze, debate and understand the shastras among the possible aspirants in the masses. Preferably, this study should happen in the traditional way – along with the augmentation of the scientific methods. Whereas, unfortunately, in most cases we see there is a craving for scientific approval even for study of our shastras.
Some of the recent “spiritual organizations” give more importance to aasana-dhyana practices to control anger, reduce hypertension, work-life balance, peace. And, the void created in the space of shastra-adhyayana, in the space of identifying and preserving our culture – is being filled by English educated elite – who have very less understanding from the traditional point of view. Why i put ‘rangoli’ in front of my house everyday – should not need a reason. I put it simply to follow my own culture. How is it even reasonable to ask for a reason for an age old tradition?
I think, I digressed a bit. Coming back to Swamiji’s teachings…. Yes, there is a huge variety in his teachings. However, it is very clear (and it is happening) that anyone can quote him out of context to wrongly de-emphasize the role of shastras. I have seen many guru-figures thundering : “Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this Divinity within by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy — by one, or more, or all of these — and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details.” … Secondary details, and you see, the devil surely is in the details.
I see that, the write-up by Ashay is precisely against the above quote of Swamiji. Let the deathless divinity remain so within my being, and I will faithfully work with the “details” towards understanding & preserving our culture, our tradition, our history, shastras – so long as i don’t (inadvertently) attain moksha. 🙂
PS: guru-figures claim that they have had some sort of self-realization. Their speeches are attended by thousands or even lakhs. They seem to know answer for everything – even without knowing. Their followers are pure fanatics. I try to reason out with the followers by telling, – I can’t see someone else’ “self-realization” – they immediately shout “listen to his lectures, so inspiring, enlightening, down to earth etc…”. I say, “arey, come to me, I will give even more enlightening lectures.” After a while, I also suggest ,”Ok, just google for inspirational quotes”… But, they just hesitate and disappear, lest they should confer on me the title – guru. 🙂
PS2: Sorry Ashay, I sort of hijacked you 😉
LikeLike
Dear Dwarkanath, thanks a lot for your comment, it helped me trace the root cause of misconceptions about Swami Vivekananda’s teachings. It is quite clear that you are unaware of Swamiji’s views on culture, idol worship, temples etc.. Do read him thoroughly before drawing conclusions.
Look what Swamiji is saying about Kshir Bhavani Temple in Kashmir: “Mother Bhavani has been manifesting Her presence here for untold years. The Mohammedans came and destroyed her temple, yet the people did nothing to protect Her. Alas, if I were then living I could never have borne it silently.”.
While talking about the importance of protecting our religion and our race, he says temples like “Somnath of Gujarat” will give you more wisdom and greater insight into the history of our race “than any amount of books”.
Also, please read his views on the need for reviving Sanskrit, and on idol worship. “It is culture that withstands shocks”, he said, so he would have gladly helped you in “preserving our culture”.
Just because he referred to temples and doctrines as secondary details, doesn’t mean that he was asking us to neglect them. He was merely pointing out to the fact that difference between different religions is due to such details, but in essence they are all searching for the same truth.
Your opposition to the “Each soul is potentially divine…” quote, makes me wonder whether Adi Shankara’s message of “aham brahmasmi” and “jeevo brahmaiva na paraha” was universally applicable to the whole humanity or was it only for Hindus.
LikeLike
Any debate on this topic will remain incomplete, if you didn’t include astrology in it. If you have learned astrology, you will understand each person have different Prakrutis ( different level of consciousness). We all are on the journey through multiple lives. Some are near to the destination, some in midway while some have just started. So one has to chose path (Dharma, Arth, Gyan & Moksha) as per his/her Prakruti.
If you understood this clearly, there will be no confusion like “What one should chose?” .
LikeLike