Klostermaier laments the trend in contemporary Christianity and Hinduism "to dismiss
the intellectual approach to religion as irrelevant and to cultivate only its emotional and
pragmatic sides." Arguing that intellectuals and scholars must be allowed to play a
more vital and central role in the development of these traditions, Klostermaier affirms
that Hindu-Christian dialogue "must recover the intellectual substance of Hinduism and
Christianity and must contribute actively to the ongoing search for truth/reality in all
spheres of life. The intellectual dimension of life has not lost its importance in our
time."4
The loss of intellectual vigor in contemporary Hinduism is a matter of deep concern and
the causes are many and complex. There are also serious implications for the Hindu
interest in dialogue with Christians and for the nature of such dialogue. In this article,
I want to identify what I perceive to be one major cause for the erosion of intellectual
life in Hinduism and its divorce from spirituality. I wish to reflect also on significance of
this for Hindu-Christian dialogue.
It is my contention that the decline in the significance of Vedic exegesis and the
reinterpretation of the authority of the Vedas in contemporary times vis a vis
personal experience are connected closely with the weakening of scholarship in
Hinduism and its lack of interest in vigorous dialogue with Christianity. It is not possible,
here, to describe in detail and to trace the historical roots of this process of
reinterpretation and I have already attempted this elsewhere.5 I will,
however, highlight some of the salient and relevant historical developments and draw
attention to their significance for Hindu-Christian dialogue.
The Western impact on India in the eighteenth century had far reaching implications
for almost every aspect of Indian life and served as a catalyst for the cultivation of
attitudes of rational inquiry and criticism. The earliest Hindu reformer to reflect the
impact of the West in his thinking about Hinduism is the Brahmo Samaj leader,
Rammohun Roy. While Roy's attitude to the authority of the Vedas had an element of
ambiguity about it, even among his own followers, it is quite clear that his approach to
the texts was different from orthodox P rva Mimamsa exegetes or from Advaita
Vedanta interpreter, Sankara. Roy applied an extrascriptural criteria of "true" religion
in his evaluation of the worth of any text, including the Vedas. He did not see religious
truth as being limited to the texts of the Vedas or see the Vedas as being indispensable
for our knowledge of God. The texts, themselves, and not only their interpretations, he
argued, must be subject to rational analysis.
What I perceive as a watershed in the attitude of contemporary Hindu interpreters to
the authority of the Vedas occurred under the leadership of Roy's successor,
Debendranath Tagore (1817-1905). The change was initiated as a consequence of a
debate sparked by the conversion to Christianity of Umesh Chandra Sarkar and his
wife. Sarkar was a student at Alexander Duff's school, and there was vigorous
opposition to the school. Duff responded with a challenge to the doctrines of the
Brahmo Samaj, questioning, in particular, the belief in Vedic infallibility.6 The Samaj
initially defended the doctrine, but this stirred a great degree of unease in its ranks. In
an effort to resolve this issue, Debendranath Tagore sent four brahmin youths
to Benares to study the Vedas. His own visit to the city in 1847 was partly in pursuit of
the same inquiry. Finally, the doctrine of Vedic infallibility was abolished in
1850.7 Perhaps the main reason for Tagore's rejection of the doctrine of
infallibility was his refusal to accept passages in the Upanisads affirming the identity
of atman and brahman. He chose to see brahman as lord and regulator
of the universe and to see the atman as dependent on brahman for its
existence.8
From that time onwards, the nonauthoritative status of any text became enshrined in
the creed of the Brahmo Samaj. Nature and intuition took the place of scripture as twin
sources of knowledge. The basis of Brahmoism became "the pure heart filled with the
light of intuitive knowledge." Tagore himself became increasingly reliant on personal
intuition as his authority and the notion of divine command (adesa) assumed a
significant role in his life.
Tagore's successor to the leadership of the Brahmo Samaj, the charismatic Keshub
Chandra Sen (1838-1884), rejoiced in the rejection of Vedic infallibility. He saw it as a
grand step in the evolution of the Samaj and its embrace of monotheism which "was not
confined to Hindoo books, to the scriptures of their own countrymen, but was to be
found in human nature in all the races and tribes and nations of the
world."9 Keshub propagated a general theory of revelation in which he
included nature, history, by which he means "great men," and inspiration. He clearly
emphasized inspiration, as the most direct and significant form of revelation. He
described it as "the direct breathing-in of God's spirit - which infuses an altogether new
life into the soul, and exalts it above all that is earthly and impure. It is more powerful,
being God's direct and immediate action on the human soul while revelation made
through physical nature and biography is indirect and mediate.''10
Sen went much further than Tagore in his denunciation of what he regarded to be
doctrine and dogma and his unfavorable comparison of these with "fire of inspiration."
Doctrine and dogma which relate to intellectual cognition, reasoning and logical thought
were cold and lifeless and had nothing to do with the attainment of salvation. He spoke
of direct perception as the only reliable, conclusive and self-evident means of gaining
spiritual knowledge and saw this perception as affirmed in the Upanisads. "No
expression is more frequently used in the Upanisads than the 'perception' of
God (darsan). It appears that Hindu sages, not content with intellectual
conceptions of the Almighty or abstract contemplation of certain Divine attributes,
sought earnestly and indeed successfully, to behold the Supreme Spirit directly and to
apprehend Him as a distinct and vivid reality in their inner
consciousness.''11 Towards the end of his life, Sen, like Debendranath
Tagore before him, gave increasing prominence to the authority of divine command
(adesa) and claimed to have received a special revelation and dispensation from God.
The significance of scriptural revelation was reduced by his claim that the texts of this
New Dispensation (Nava-Vidhan) included "the whole of science, physical,
metaphysical and moral and also the science of religion."
At the time of Keshub's death in 1884, the center of religious attention in Calcutta had
already shifted to Ramakrishna (1836-1886) who had taken up residence in the Kali
temple at Dakshineshwar. Primarily through Vivekananda and the Ramakrishna Mission
founded in 1897, Ramakrishna, like the Brahmo Samaj, has exerted significant
influence on the character of contemporary Hindu attitudes to scriptural authority. While
Ramakrishna's background was different from that of the Brahmo Samaj leaders in that
he was virtually unexposed to Westernizing influences, he concurred with them in his
disdain for scripture and in his championing of personal experience.
Ramakrishna possessed a deep aversion to formal learning and education. Learned
persons were likened by him to kites and vultures, which soar to great heights in the
sky but whose eyes are forever focused on the decaying carcasses below. There were
also described as similar to foolish people in an orchard, who count the leaves and fruit
and argue to estimate their value instead of plucking and relishing the juicy fruit.
Reason and the intellectual life received little attention or recognition in his
teachings.
Ramakrishna confessed skepticism about the value of scriptural study. The scriptures
are diluted, containing, as he puts it, a "mixture of sand and sugar," difficult to
distinguish and separate. They are of no use in conveying the feeling of God: "This
feeling is something very different from book-learning. Books, scriptures, and science
appear as mere dirt and straw after the realization of God." Like Keshub Chandra Sen,
the direct vision of God was the main theme of his instruction. It was the only form of
verification: "But seeing is far better than hearing. Then all doubts disappear. It is true
that many things are recorded in the scripture; but all these are useless without the
direct realization of God.''12
Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), the foremost disciple of Ramakrishna has, more than
any other Hindu in recent times, influenced the popular understanding of Hinduism in
India and abroad. There is very little in modern Hindu, particularly Vedanta, apologetic
writing which does not carry the imprint of Vivekananda's influence. His attitude to
scriptural authority was shaped by the teachings of Ramakrishna, but also by the stand
of the Brahmo Samaj in whose circles he was active as a youth. He developed the
suggestions and outlines from these sources into an elaborate rejection of the
necessity for scripture.
Vivekananda followed his teacher, Ramakrishna, in attributing a low value to scriptures
and in upholding the supremacy of personal experience. The adequacy of scriptures
is compared to the utility of a map to a traveler, before visiting a
country.13 The map, according to Vivekananda, can create only curiosity
for firsthand knowledge of the place and can communicate only a vague conception of
its reality. Maps are in no way equivalent to the direct knowledge of the country,
gathered by actually being there.
Vivekananda understands the Vedas to be records of the spiritual discoveries of others
and the methods by which such discoveries have been made. These findings, however,
have no validity unless they are personally rediscovered by each person:
Scriptural analysis is described by Vivekananda as intellectual opium eating (see CW,
1:45, 4:168). Scripture are specified by him as unsatisfactory theoretical religion and
included among the non-essentials of religion. Among other non-essentials, he listed
doctrines, dogmas, rituals, temples, images and forms.
S. Wesley Ariarajah identifies four different types of interreligious dialogue, each with
its unique contribution to make.14
Dialogue of life is an
encounter which takes place in the course of everyday life among people of different
traditions who live in the same community. There is no conscious or explicit articulation
and exchange of religious belief. Such explicit exchange of beliefs and perspectives is
a characteristic of the dialogue of discourse. In the dialogue of spirituality,
participants seek "to go beyond words to encounter the other at the level of the heart."
It attracts those "who feel that the essential unity of humanity cannot be expressed in
words, but must be celebrated in worship and meditation." Finally, the dialogue of
action is characterised by cooperation among people of different faiths for the
attainment of desirable ends of their common existence such as peace, justice,
protection of the environment, human rights etc.
While acknowledging the various forms of interreligious dialogue, it appears to me that
what Ariarajah calls the dialogue of discourse will continue to be one of its
necessary and vital forms. While not prominent in the other forms, it seems to be
implied in them. The sharing of thought and reflection, the understanding of the scope
and limits of reason and language in other traditions, and the mutual enrichment which
comes from exposure to each other's wisdom (jnana) are facets of dialogue which, if
engaged in with commitment, humility and a passion for truth can never become "ivory
tower" intellectualism. Such dialogue needs to find a prominent place in the meeting
of Hinduism and Christianity.
The decline of intellectual vigor in any tradition through the denigration of reason and
the intellect will be reflected in the quality of its interest in other traditions and in the
kind of interreligious dialogue in which it desires to engage. The championing in
contemporary Hinduism of personal experience over the authority of scripture, which
I have briefly traced in this essay, has contributed to the divorce of scholarship from
spirituality. Examples of scholarship without religious commitment and religious
commitment lacking the self-critical insights of scholarship abound. Their creative
combination in modern Hinduism is rare. The disconnection between scholarship and
spirituality in Hinduism limits the quality of the Hindu dialogue with Christianity. The
dialogue of discourse is most enriching when it occurs among participants whose lives
reflect the integration of both.
The divorce to which I am referring can be illustrated by highlighting the classic
approach of Sankara or Ramanuja. For Sankara, the Vedas are the definitive and
unique source of our knowledge of brahman, the gain of which leads to the discovery
of moksa. The Vedas are a valid source of knowledge in the form of words
(sabda-pramana) and saving knowledge depends on the proper comprehension
of the meaning of these words. Scriptural learning and exegesis therefore, become very
important along with such disciplines as grammar and etymology that aid interpretation.
Proper principles for arriving at the meaning of the text are
important.15
The acceptance of the Vedas as an authoritative source of knowledge did not mean the
abandonment of a very important role for reason. Reason is important for deciding
between different interpretations of passages and for reconciling conflicting ones.
Reason also plays an important role in assessing and responding to rival views.
Sankara obviously takes differences of doctrine very seriously and in responding to the
claims of rival systems which do not accept the authority of the Vedas, he is
constrained to demonstrate the validity of Advaita on the basis of the reasonableness
of its propositions.
The decline of the significance of the Vedas as a pramana and its
characterisation as secondhand religion has contributed to the devaluing of scriptural
scholarship. Its study, exegesis and interpretation are not of utmost significance.
Vivekananda contemptuously dismisses scriptural scholarship as an activity at the
theoretical and intellectual level. With an emphasis in contemporary Hinduism on the
gain of knowledge through the transcendence of reason and not on its mediation,
reason, argument and intellectual activity, all important qualities of interreligious
dialogue, assume more of an obstructive character. There is an impassioned
derogation and belittlement of the human intellect in Vivekananda, the leading
Neo-Vedanta interpreter, which is not at all found in his classical predecessors: "The
intellect is only the street-cleaner, cleansing the path for us, a secondary worker, the
policeman; but the policeman is not a positive necessity for the workings of society"
(CW 2:306). Paradoxically, it would seem that where the Vedas are upheld are a valid
means of knowledge, reason has a more positive role to play in clarifying, explaining
and defending its propositions. Where the attempt is made, on the other hand, to
supersede the necessity for faith in the scripture in the interest of being more rational,
reason becomes almost insignificant.
The rejection of the primary authority of scripture, the derision of scholarship, the
ridicule of dogma and doctrine and the belittling of reason, which we see in so many
modern interpreters of Hinduism have other important implications for Hindu-Christian
dialogue. Perhaps most important is the tendency to overlook the significance doctrinal
differences. Because conclusive insight is understood to be gained through an
experience which transcends reason, interpreters, like Vivekananda, are able to
dismiss what they perceive to be preoccupation of the rational mind. It is only by
overlooking and dismissing the importance of different doctrinal claims that one can so
easily assert, as many Hindus do, that all paths lead to the same goal. Such scant
regard for differences of doctrine is often frustrating for many Christians who engage
with Hindus in dialogue.
I do not wish to deny the vital role of the experiential dimension in the human search
for truth or to claim that it without significance in the Hindu tradition. Sankara, himself,
at various points in his commentary on the Brahma-sutra acknowledges this
role.16 While Sankara, as I believe, acknowledges the ultimacy of scriptural revelation
for our knowledge of the absolute, his understanding of the relationship between
scripture and personal experience (anubhava) is dynamic and creative. It offers
scope for vigorous life of the intellect by preserving for it a necessary role in the
spiritual quest. By being more faithful to the Upanisadic ideal of the unity of learning
(srotriyam) and commitment to spiritual truth (brahmanistham) it offers
a more promising and rewarding model for Hindu dialogue with Christianity and other
religions. The complete subordination, on the other hand, of scriptural revelation to the
authority of personal experience and the associated vilification of reason, the role of
the intellect, discussion and language, have sadly engendered skepticism about the
worth of dialogue in which these have a prominent role. The devaluation of learning
and intellectual skills in a prominent heroic interpreter of Hinduism, like Vivekananda,
must not go unchallenged.
Since the latter half of the 1960's, the Hindu population of the United States has been
growing steadily. Until that time, the doors of welcome were virtually shut to immigrants
from Asia. The Chinese exclusion act of 1882 was applied broadly to include all people
of Asian origin. In 1965, a new immigration law, initiated by John F. Kennedy, abolished
quotas based on national origins and opened the country to immigrants from India.
Today, there are lively and flourishing communities of Hindus in most of the major cities
of North America and temple construction has been rapidly following the establishment
of such communities. Hindus are prominently among those whom W.C. Smith described
as "our neighbors, our colleagues, our competitors, our fellows."17
The context of interrelated living offers fruitful opportunities for the "dialogue of life"
between Hindus and Christians and this is clearly taking place. I think that most Hindus
in North America will easily identify occasions and moments in their lives when they
had to articulate some aspect of their faith and practice to people of other religions.
Hindus, on the whole, usually embrace the opportunity to do this. Our interrelated lives
in communities of diversity will also require of us more engagement in the "dialogue of
action" through which we will be called upon to work with others for the advancement
of mutual interests. While there are many groups in North America whose beliefs and
practices are influenced by elements of Hinduism, the "dialogue of spirituality" which
Ariarajah describes as involving participation in each other's worship and meditation
is still exceptional for Hindus. There is only one Hindu -based organization, of which
I am aware, The International Society of Krishna Consciousness in West Virginia,
which prominently promotes dialogue of this kind. Ariarajah points to the concerns
which many people have about the possibility of meaningfully entering the worship of
another tradition and fears of uncritical syncretism.
The dialogue of discourse between Hinduism and Christianity in North America is
lacking both in frequency and depth and in this essay I have offered another reason for
what many have discerned to be the lack of Hindu interest and initiative for such
dialogue. The questioning of uncritical attitudes about the supremacy of personal
experience, and the recovery of its existing but overshadowed traditions of vibrant
learning and spirituality seem to me to be a necessary condition for fruitful dialogue of
discourse between both traditions. Modern Hindu commentators have not only upheld
the authority of personal experience but they have affirmed this to be the uniqueness
of Hinduism. I am convinced that the affirmation of a more creative relationship
between revelation, reason and experience will reveal many more exciting areas of
common interest for discussion between our two religions.
Anantanand Rambachan is a Hindu scholar from Trinidad and Tobago and
Professor of Religion at St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA.
2. See Harold Coward, "Hindu-Christian Dialogue: A Review", in Hindu-Christian Studies
Bulletin 1 (Autumn 1988), pp. 1-5.
3. See Anantanand Rambachan, "Religious Pluralism: A Hindu Perspective", Current
Dialogue 17 (December 1989), pp. 25-27.
4. Klostermaier, "The Future of Hindu-Christian Dialogue", p. 269.
5. Anantanand Rambachan, The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the
Authority of the Vedas (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994). See Chapter 1.
6. See Sivanath Sastri, History of the Brahmo Samaj, 2nd. ed., (Calcutta: Brahmo
Samaj, 1974), p. 63.
7. It is unfortunate that there are no records of the details of the argument on both sides. Such
records would have clarified the concerns of the Brahmo Samaj abut the authority of the
Vedas.
8. See S.K. Das, The Shadow of the Cross: Christianity and Hinduism in a Colonial
Context (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1974), pp.70-71.
9. K.C. Sen, "The Living God in England and India", in Discourses and Writings
(Calcutta: Brahmo Tract Society, 1904), p. 149.
10. K.C. Sen, "Great Men", in Lectures and Tracts by Keshub Chunder Sen, ed. S.D.
Collet (London: Strahan, 1870),p. 88.
11. K.C. Sen, "Primitive Faith and Modern Speculations", in Discourses and Writings,
p. 46.
12. See Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Ramakrishna, trans. Swami Nikhilananda
(New York: Ramakrisha-Vedanta Center, 1977),pp. 543, 645-646, 476.
13. See The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (CW), 8 vols. (Calcutta: Advaita
Ashrama, 1964-1971), 1:185-186. (Documentation is hereafter given in the text).
14. See S.Wesley Ariarajah, "Pluralism and Harmony", Current Dialogue 25 (December
1993), pp. 17-19.
15. For a discussion of the method of Sankara see Anantanand Rambachan, Accomplishing
the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1991).
16. See, for example, his commentary on Brahma-sutra I.i.2.
17. W.C.Smith, The Faith of Other Men (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 11.
There are certain religious facts which, as in external science, have to be
perceived and upon them religion will be built. Of course, the extreme
claim that you must believe every dogma of a religion is degrading to the
human mind. The man who asks you to believe everything, degrades
himself, and, if you believe, degrades you too. The sages of the world
have only the right to tell us that they have analyzed their minds and
have found these facts, and if we do the same we shall also believe, and
not before. That is all there is in religion. (CW, 2:163).
The proof of the truth of the Vedas is the direct knowledge of the individual, not the fact
of its embodiment in any text. The individual must verify the text and this verification is
likened to ordinary direct perception.
The proof, therefore, of the Vedas is just the same as the proof of this
table before me, pratyaksa, direct perception. This I see with the senses, and
the truths of spirituality we also see in a superconscious state of the human soul.
(CW, 3:253).
The imperative, therefore, for Vivekananda, is that everyone should become a rsi. The
chief characteristic of rsi status is the possibility of a direct apprehension of truth. The
possibility and requirement of every individual to become a rsi is one of the important
points of contrast that Vivekananda emphasized between Hinduism and other religious
traditions. In the latter, he claims, insight is limited to a few select individuals through
whom truth is made available to the many. "Truth came to Jesus of Nazareth, and we
must all obey him. But the truth came to the rsis of India - the mantra-drastas -
the seers of thought - and will come to all rsis in the future, not to talkers, not to
book-swallowers, not to scholars, not to philologists, but to seers of thought" (CW,
3:283). Vivekananda often asserted that only in becoming a rsi does one understand
the scripture properly. His argument appears to be that as products and records of
direct perception, these texts were not written for the intellect, or for understanding
through a process of rational inquiry and analysis. They become meaningful only when
one has lifted oneself to the same heights of perception. At that point, however, they
are useful only to the extent that they confirm what one has known directly (CW, 4, 165,
7:85, 89). An opinion, like this, seems to deprive the scriptures from having even the
preliminary worth of a map.
1. Klaus Klostermaier, "The Future of Hind-Christian Dialogue", in Harold Coward, ed., Hindu
Christian Dialogue (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1989), p. 265.
