by B. JEYAMOHAN
It will wipe out internal debate and reformist tendencies within the tradition.
What seems to be lost on most critics of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s speech on Sanatana Dharma is that the issue is not, in fact, a religious one—it has to do with philosophy and spirituality.
Instead of compartmentalising Hindu spirituality and Hindu philosophy, I usually refer to “the Hindu mei-gnana (true wisdom) tradition” to emphasise the importance of gnana, or knowledge, in the larger scheme of religious discourse. Hinduism, after all, is neither a monolithic religious construct nor a canonically sanctioned single doctrine; it countenances no centralised authority. In fact, any attempt to establish an exclusive and singular interpretation or an authoritative central power within the eclectic practice of Hinduism is motivated only by political and not spiritual concerns. Such attempts will inevitably lead to the destruction of the whole Hindu mei-gnana tradition and therefore must be stoutly opposed by anyone committed to preserving it.
India’s age-old mei-gnana tradition is not a monolith either: it is a complex and plural body of knowledge that has evolved via centuries of intense philosophical debates; it has been enriched by the steady iteration of rebuttals and ultimate syntheses of mutually opposed points of view. The debates themselves, since they hinge on fundamental questions of life, are never likely to cease, and so the tradition, too, will inexorably continue to evolve. It is only in a space where multiple perspectives and practices jostle and nudge one another that the true seeker of knowledge can find an opportunity for enlightened philosophico-spiritual enquiry.
Facilitating such exchange has been the common practice of the spiritual institutions that have flourished in this land for thousands of years. The voice of every belief system and philosophical school has found representation. No matter how strongly one might be convinced of the infallibility of one’s creed and its exclusive access to absolute truth, any attempt to calumniate those opposing one’s beliefs will be frowned upon as a disgraceful mark of ignorance.
It follows then that nobody with even a passing familiarity with spiritual and philosophical discourse will entertain the idea that there can be an “enemy camp” in a debate. There is always opposition in philosophical stances, but no such thing as a side that must be silenced or a voice that must be suppressed. Nothing in the realm of philosophy is offensive or insulting to the seeker of truth; nothing deserves to be forbidden.
For this reason, I am opposed to the concept of “blasphemy” as a whole. I believe that holding certain beliefs and icons as beyond criticism is fundamentally against all pursuits of the intellect or wisdom. I have held for 30 years that intellectual discourse has no place for believers, only for those who genuinely seek wisdom.
***
The various strands of the Hindu mei-gnana tradition may be broadly categorised into the Vedic, the anti-Vedic, and the Vedantic. The Vedic schools regard the Vedas as the primary and ultimate wisdom and everything else as their extension. They foreground scripturally prescribed yagna rites and demand strict adherence to rituals, customs, and beliefs. They may be called orthodox prescriptivists or ritualists; traditionally, they were known as the Purvamimamsakas.
The Purvamimamsa school originally recognised only Vedic gods such as Indra and Varuna. It refused to accommodate absolute deities like Siva and Vishnu, temple worship, and the path of bhakti (devotion). It promoted yagnas, or fire sacrifice, alone. However, as time went by, it slowly subsumed the six traditional faiths: Saiva, Vaishnava, Shakta, Kaumara, Ganapatya, and Shaurya. It expanded to allow space for the idea of an absolute deity, temple worship, and bhakti. It is this tradition that prevails as Vedic Hinduism today.
Within the Hindu philosophical tradition, there has always been a strong anti-Vedic current. Even the orthodox schools of Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika did not fully subscribe to all Vedic precepts and practices, while the anti-Vedic posture of the Charvaka and Tarkika schools is well known.
The six excrescent sects (pura-chamayam) of Saivism were fundamentally against the Vedas, as was the Siddha tradition, an extension of these Saivite sects.
The third stream marks the Vedas as the starting point in its pursuit of wisdom but aims to advance the quest of knowledge to evolve beyond their scope. In doing so, it departs from the dictates of ritualism or fire sacrifices prescribed by the Vedas; on occasion, it even critiques Vedic tenets. This tradition is known as Vedanta.
Ignoring these nuances, many have used the label “Sanatana Dharma” as a blanket term to refer to Hinduism. However, it is only the first stream—the Vedic religion—that is being identified by that name today because sanatana means primordial or beginning-less. Its adherents value antiquity in and of itself as irrefutable proof of worth; they believe their tradition is ancient and therefore unquestionable. For this reason, it is they who primarily and emphatically use the word sanatana to refer to their faith.
It is small wonder then that their opponents use the same label too. Those who criticise the Vedic tradition use the term Sanatana Dharma to assert that their opposition is not directed at all sects within the Hindu fold. They also employ this specific term—since it is used to posit an uncontested authority derived from antiquity—to oppose customs and beliefs that are foisted in its name.
Frontline for more