|
Harmony of Religions
 The concept of harmony of religions,
which is now widely associated with Sri Ramakrishna’s
name, still remains poorly understood. This is not surprising, given the nuances of
religious experience, political and social thinking,
and theological intricacies it involves.
In 1840 the indologist H H Wilson noted that
according to the Hindu view, ‘every form of religion
had equal merit and “God appointed to every tribe
its own faith, and to every sect its own religion, that
man might glorify Him in diverse modes, all having
the same end, and being equally acceptable in His
sight.”’ This has been the traditional popular Hindu
outlook. It came in for criticism in the early twentieth
century as‘indifferentism’ , as being based on
ignorance of other religions, if not one’s own. More
recently some critics have taken Sri Ramakrishna’s
concept of ‘harmony of religions’ to mean ‘all religions
are the same’ and termed it ‘radical universalism’,
holding it responsible for Hindus being largely
unaware of their own tradition and thus remaining
particularly prone to being proselytized. While the
latter charges may be true, radical universalism is a
gross misrepresentation of Sri Ramakrishna’s view,
as Dr Jeffery Long pointed out in the January number.
According to Sri Ramakrishna: ‘There are different
views. All these views are but so many paths
to reach the same goal. But everyone believes that
his view alone is right, that his watch alone keeps
correct time. … However wrong the watches may
be, the Sun never makes a mistake. One should
check one’s watch with the sun.’
To people brought up in monolithic cultures
and religious traditions, the idea still strikes as incredulous: ‘How can all religions be true?’ How
can monotheism and polytheism be true simultaneously?
And is each of all the sects that keep
mushrooming perennially equally true as the great
religious traditions that have stood the test of time?
Interestingly, most critics who ask this question are
convinced of the truth of their own religions and,
if they have looked at other religious traditions, are
quick to point to faults therein. Sri Ramakrishna
was also not blind to the faults in religions. But
he did not support an ‘exclusivist’ view: ‘You may
say that there are many errors and superstitions in
another religion. I should reply: Suppose there are.
Every religion has errors. … It is enough to have
yearning for God. … God is the Inner Guide?’ Sri
Ramakrishna ‘was also aware of the existence of
certain cults, sects, and groups which indulged in
degenerate practices. He did not condemn them
but compared them to the small back-door in old
fashioned houses in India through which the scavenger
enters the house to clean toilets.’
Another charge, brought from the opposite end,
against the doctrine of harmony of religions is that
of ‘relativism’: ‘that all truth is relative, there is no
absolute truth or Reality’. This again is a misrepresentation
of Sri Ramakrishna’s statement that the
religions were ‘but so many paths to reach the same
goal. ‘Pluralism holds that there is one ultimate
Truth or Reality, but this Truth admits of more
than one valid formulation.’ Swami Vivekananda ‘took pluralism [articulated in the doctrine of harmony
of religions] one step further by showing that
pluralism must culminate in universalism’. Universalism,
unfortunately, is no less misunderstood than
pluralism. Swami Bhajanananda’s Harmony of Religions
from the Standpoint of Sri Ramakrishna and
Swami Vivekananda has a summary discussion of
some of the issues involved.
Scholars like Anantanand Rambachan and
Paul Griffiths argue that ‘views like the Harmony
of Religions undercut the intellectual activity of
arguing for a tradition’s truth claims’. This view is
not wholly untrue: The numerous schools and systems
of philosophy in ancient India and the various
religious sects in the middle ages ‘carried on vigorous
polemics. The scholars of each school, some
of whom may be ranked among the most brilliant
thinkers in the world, tried to establish their view
of Reality and their way of liberation to be the only
true one and tried to prove the invalidity or falsity
of the views of the other systems and schools.’
This was the reason why Hindu culture learnt to be
both tolerant of diversity as well as dialogical in its
approach to diversity. Unfortunately, by the time
of Sri Ramakrishna’s advent, Hindu society had
become badly sectarian. As the historian Nemai
Sadhan Bose noted: ‘The life and teachings of Sri
Ramakrishna was a shining illustration of the only
course left to the nation to achieve that unity and
integration. He showed that in India there was
room for all kinds of sects but not for sectarianism.
Diversity in faith and culture was a welcome
adornment but narrow spirit of divisiveness was a
curse. Respect for one’s faith was a sign of strength
but disrespect for others’ beliefs was a sign of weakness
of character and mental make-up.’ Students
of Sri Ramakrishna’s life will see him as interested
both in dialogue with various religious traditions
as well as in meaningful debate.
Sri Ramakrishna’s dharma-samanvaya ‘was not
derived from books or intellectual reasoning, but
from his own direct mystical experience. For him
religion meant direct experience, and not rituals
and dogmas. He believed that if a person follows
his religion with faith, sincerity and purity of mind,
he is sure to attain direct spiritual experience. And
he wanted everyone should follow his own religion
and attain the highest fulfillment that it promises.
This is what Sri Ramakrishna meant by harmony
of religions.’
The primacy given to spiritual experience by
Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda has also
evoked criticism. In traditional Vedic religion the
Vedas, and not personal experiences, are the highest
proof of the validity of religious truths. True. In
his text ‘Hinduism and Sri Ramakrishna’, Swami
Vivekananda acknowledges as much: ‘In matters
of religious duty the Vedas are the only capable authority.’
But then he adds, ‘Rishihood, this power of
supersensuous perception of the Vedas, is real religion.
And so long as this does not develop in the life
of an initiate, so long religion is a mere empty word
to him.’ The Vedas themselves invite humans to this
transcendence where ‘worlds are no worlds, gods
no gods, Vedas no Vedas’ and remind us that ‘if one
does not realize Brahman here, great destruction lies
in wait’. The above criticism conflates a pramana,
means of knowledge, with purushartha, aim of life.
When Swami Vivekananda says that ‘doctrines,
or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms,
are but secondary details’, he seems to be undercutting
even some of the most cherished expressions
of religion, including those of Hinduism. This was
hardly his aim. He noted: ‘The world’s great spiritual
giants have all been produced only by those
religious sects which have been in possession of
very rich mythology and ritual. All sects that have
attempted to worship God without any form or
ceremony have crushed without mercy everything
that is beautiful and sublime in religion. Their religion
is a fanaticism at best, a dry thing. The history
of the world is a standing witness to this fact.’
Much of the dissent and fight between religions
is, of course, in doctrinal details, social injunctions,
and over political diktats. The vast majority of humanity
can hardly access the supernal realms of
realization of an avatara, a prophet, or a rishi. Participation
in the rich religious expressions—‘the
secondary details’—is of great value to them. But
what happens when our religion chooses to tell us
that other traditions are false, need to be saved, or
eliminated. Traditionally, social and political injunctions
were needed to safeguard against such
intrusions. In present times the principle of harmony
of religions provides a basis for a genuine
secularism that does not discount religion and also
dialogue. A plural society can ignore it only at its
own cost.
|
