As a tradition that I am soaked in "H'm" is something that I like thinking with. Which is not to say that I see as any sort of unified tradition or as an Ism. In the public sphere, it may be treated as one, by some more intense kinds of followers, but that 'as such' is not my interest, though it informs my thinking about H'm.
With this as a sort of starting idiom, I find it wonderful to plunge into all other forms of religious and non religious thought, perhaps in a sense loosing the very category of H'm which perhaps was never there from the beginning!
As against the wonderful tradition of Christianity, which combines effectively with modern reason and science is some of its forms, what is H'm relation and response to modern times. Apart from somewhat simplistic celebrations of seeing all science in ancient Hindu thought?
Of this too is symptomatic of the particular position of Hinduism. As a spiritual tradition that was concerned with direct encounter with truth and reality it does offer another kind of access to objective truth (objective not as 'object' related). in this manner H'm is both contesting and in agreement with science. That discoveries in recent science seem to agree with several eastern knowledges is not incidental surely. But how then can Vedantic forms of H'm work with science and more importantly with democracy, equality, emancipation and justice? Can they at all? In sofar as H'm and even Buddhism to some extent see what happens in the world as a larger working of destiny, cause and effect and the natural ebb and flow of consciousness what form of intervention can they take. How does the image of un-grounded, creative, modern man work with an approach that effaces the social, wordly self? How also does H'm seem to talk quite comfortably with the well-to-do, saying that wealth can co-exist with spiritual life - that those with money can share it and thus spread the fruits of wealth in the world? How is it that Hinduism doesn't seem to propound simple, ethical living? simple living is immediately associated with ascetic withdrawal. there is an acceptance that 'in-the-world' one must lives with the elements, with the gunas, with imperfection, with inequality, war and violence? Why for instance does Krishna see War to be Arjuna's legitimate duty and path to glory? (of course, we know that this is also somewhat rhetorical, one of the many means of convincing used by Krishna; and also when seen allegorically the war can be seen as an inner war. Yet the fact remains). How, when we have different ideas of people at different levels of spiritual development, can we treat all in the same manner?
This is not to deny that there is a strong bhakti tradition etc.. wherein it is clear that spiritual attainment and ability and even propensity at birth has little to do with caste or family background. and in fact this is not just the bhakti tradition but perhaps was always so... Then is it that we just interpreted Hinduism very selectively in modern times? Obviously, social justice was not an explicit concern in earlier Hinduism as far as we know. But perhaps that is the form of the tradition which in one sense IS quite individualistic? those who were interested in spiritual inquiry were always a class of their own. but precisely this, again meant that while in-the-world, one would remain caught in a system of distinction. But yet again, this realm was one of Maya and worldly attachment, which itself without fail will create gunas, difference, dispersion, inequality.
Meanwhile, I wonder, and think that there may be a strong possibility to bring together ideas of strong freedom and moving away from social norms in Hindu liberal thought and modernity that posits not paternalistic, rights based, social justice based liberalism but precisely a post-rights bases concept of universal man. Of course this is a tall idea, and perhaps a bit conceited. Because, i do think that this cannot be done without infusing ethical thinking in Hinduism - something that is mostly in thin supply today. in an unequal world, the rich hindu or the middle class hindu must accept that his wealth mostly does not come without a price to someone else, that he must not simply celebrate merit or hard work without looking into the actual content of his work. without this, the talk of the oneness of all consciousness seems somewhat hollow.
more later...
Meanwhile how does one understand the strong sense of the rasa of life, the image of Shiva who is the highest in the spiritual domain but yet precisely the god of dance, music, is less ritualistic and lives with snakes and sundry spirits and ghosts and in graveyards. At once relating to death and life, to rasa and yet a victorious against kaama. Is not rasa, also indicating that real spiritual understanding does not hold by distinctions, even in-the-world? Shiva Bhaktas - for instance as shown in the recent Mahadev serial are actually simple and ethical even if they may be affluent. of course the recent serial comes in the context of modern ideas of social justice as well as a complex engagement with Christianity and Islam already having occoured historically. So is this a H'm already assimilated with the Others, that some fundamentalists are fighting? and then havent they already lost the battle, because they precious religion is already, beautifully corrupted, assimilated? The magnanimous H'm that is attacked for engulfing the identity of all other religions, by several 'left-liberals', is also utterly infused with other sensibilities...? Can the ultimate assimilator escape this wonderful destiny? In the end as thinkers of H'm we can perhaps only talk of traditions of thought, that abound in this pantheon but not of any Ism that can or must be defended. Perhaps the only Ism that remains then does dissolve into world spirituality that conducts many conversations with science, reason and wit other religions.
Yet maybe some unique traditions, stem from its situated tendencies in the subcontinent. The form of spirituality that emanates from this churning, relates most strongly to what could be called psychological freedom - the ability of self awareness, watching, inquiry, that lays bare the working of the mind and flow of thought. Lays bare in utter simplicity - not through psychological categories but through a falling away of knots and complexity. Accompanied by an openness to love - for the self yes and also a generalised love, best not opposed to rasa (though not necessarily overtly relating to it) this allows a powerful grounding in the ungrounded self... form where the fears that relate to social distinction can slowly reduce. where one can relate to the world as, is commonly said in motivational messages these days, 'being yourself'. Where one behaves with people in a manner that welcomes them without judgement and thus also opens the boundaries that they have reconciled to live with... a free, alive, univeral human (and if fact beyond human too) relation is thus possible.
With this as a sort of starting idiom, I find it wonderful to plunge into all other forms of religious and non religious thought, perhaps in a sense loosing the very category of H'm which perhaps was never there from the beginning!
As against the wonderful tradition of Christianity, which combines effectively with modern reason and science is some of its forms, what is H'm relation and response to modern times. Apart from somewhat simplistic celebrations of seeing all science in ancient Hindu thought?
Of this too is symptomatic of the particular position of Hinduism. As a spiritual tradition that was concerned with direct encounter with truth and reality it does offer another kind of access to objective truth (objective not as 'object' related). in this manner H'm is both contesting and in agreement with science. That discoveries in recent science seem to agree with several eastern knowledges is not incidental surely. But how then can Vedantic forms of H'm work with science and more importantly with democracy, equality, emancipation and justice? Can they at all? In sofar as H'm and even Buddhism to some extent see what happens in the world as a larger working of destiny, cause and effect and the natural ebb and flow of consciousness what form of intervention can they take. How does the image of un-grounded, creative, modern man work with an approach that effaces the social, wordly self? How also does H'm seem to talk quite comfortably with the well-to-do, saying that wealth can co-exist with spiritual life - that those with money can share it and thus spread the fruits of wealth in the world? How is it that Hinduism doesn't seem to propound simple, ethical living? simple living is immediately associated with ascetic withdrawal. there is an acceptance that 'in-the-world' one must lives with the elements, with the gunas, with imperfection, with inequality, war and violence? Why for instance does Krishna see War to be Arjuna's legitimate duty and path to glory? (of course, we know that this is also somewhat rhetorical, one of the many means of convincing used by Krishna; and also when seen allegorically the war can be seen as an inner war. Yet the fact remains). How, when we have different ideas of people at different levels of spiritual development, can we treat all in the same manner?
This is not to deny that there is a strong bhakti tradition etc.. wherein it is clear that spiritual attainment and ability and even propensity at birth has little to do with caste or family background. and in fact this is not just the bhakti tradition but perhaps was always so... Then is it that we just interpreted Hinduism very selectively in modern times? Obviously, social justice was not an explicit concern in earlier Hinduism as far as we know. But perhaps that is the form of the tradition which in one sense IS quite individualistic? those who were interested in spiritual inquiry were always a class of their own. but precisely this, again meant that while in-the-world, one would remain caught in a system of distinction. But yet again, this realm was one of Maya and worldly attachment, which itself without fail will create gunas, difference, dispersion, inequality.
Meanwhile, I wonder, and think that there may be a strong possibility to bring together ideas of strong freedom and moving away from social norms in Hindu liberal thought and modernity that posits not paternalistic, rights based, social justice based liberalism but precisely a post-rights bases concept of universal man. Of course this is a tall idea, and perhaps a bit conceited. Because, i do think that this cannot be done without infusing ethical thinking in Hinduism - something that is mostly in thin supply today. in an unequal world, the rich hindu or the middle class hindu must accept that his wealth mostly does not come without a price to someone else, that he must not simply celebrate merit or hard work without looking into the actual content of his work. without this, the talk of the oneness of all consciousness seems somewhat hollow.
more later...
Meanwhile how does one understand the strong sense of the rasa of life, the image of Shiva who is the highest in the spiritual domain but yet precisely the god of dance, music, is less ritualistic and lives with snakes and sundry spirits and ghosts and in graveyards. At once relating to death and life, to rasa and yet a victorious against kaama. Is not rasa, also indicating that real spiritual understanding does not hold by distinctions, even in-the-world? Shiva Bhaktas - for instance as shown in the recent Mahadev serial are actually simple and ethical even if they may be affluent. of course the recent serial comes in the context of modern ideas of social justice as well as a complex engagement with Christianity and Islam already having occoured historically. So is this a H'm already assimilated with the Others, that some fundamentalists are fighting? and then havent they already lost the battle, because they precious religion is already, beautifully corrupted, assimilated? The magnanimous H'm that is attacked for engulfing the identity of all other religions, by several 'left-liberals', is also utterly infused with other sensibilities...? Can the ultimate assimilator escape this wonderful destiny? In the end as thinkers of H'm we can perhaps only talk of traditions of thought, that abound in this pantheon but not of any Ism that can or must be defended. Perhaps the only Ism that remains then does dissolve into world spirituality that conducts many conversations with science, reason and wit other religions.
Yet maybe some unique traditions, stem from its situated tendencies in the subcontinent. The form of spirituality that emanates from this churning, relates most strongly to what could be called psychological freedom - the ability of self awareness, watching, inquiry, that lays bare the working of the mind and flow of thought. Lays bare in utter simplicity - not through psychological categories but through a falling away of knots and complexity. Accompanied by an openness to love - for the self yes and also a generalised love, best not opposed to rasa (though not necessarily overtly relating to it) this allows a powerful grounding in the ungrounded self... form where the fears that relate to social distinction can slowly reduce. where one can relate to the world as, is commonly said in motivational messages these days, 'being yourself'. Where one behaves with people in a manner that welcomes them without judgement and thus also opens the boundaries that they have reconciled to live with... a free, alive, univeral human (and if fact beyond human too) relation is thus possible.