There are people who aver that Indian society, often called Bharata varsha, adheres to sanatana dharma, that indeed the world had once adhered to such sanatana dharma. This essay is an attempt to collect my thoughts on this matter – not to find fault with current practices, nor claim that my view alone is right, but to share with you those thoughts.
Sanatana dharma, sanatana religion, Manu dharma shastra, Bharata varsha, Hindu culture: which of these nomenclaturescorrectly describes the state of our present religion? Difficult to answer. For, with the passage of time, religious practices have altered so much that it is difficult to say what is correct and what is not.
To begin with, sanatana dharma does not seem to be the creation of sage Sanatana who belonged in the Kailasa heredity of Sanaka, Sanathana, Sanatana, and Sanatsujata. In his Siddhantha Saravali, Trilochana Sivachariya says that sanatana dharma was actually part of Saiva siddhanta which deals with sareeyai, kriyai, yoga and jnana.
Also, the sanatana of kailasa heredity does not appear to have written any treatise dealing exclusively with social organization. Even if there were such a book, Indian culture and Hinduism are not book-based, but rest on the experience of mankind. The dictionary definition for sanatana is indeed ancient. With other religions, the mane of their founder and the time of their founding are available. But not with Hinduism. Especially the time when it was founded. Heaven alone knows. This being so, and with sanatana defined as ancient, one can say that Hinduism could have acquired the appellation sanatana dharma with the passage of time.
One bit is evidence for the ancient nature of Bharat is to be found in the sankalpa in all religious ceremonies, where the expression "kali yuge prathame padhe" occurs. That expression signifies that we have crossed the krita yuga, treta yuga and dwapara yuga and are now in the first quarter of kali yuga. Puranic proofs, such as that the Ramayana belonged to the krita yuga and the Maha Bharat to the dwapara yuga, reinforce this truth. Yet almanacs, while referring to the saka calendar names after Salivahana and Vikrama, number the present year as 1917. Hardly anyone seems to give a thought to this.
Consider Manu dharma shastra a little deeply and you find that sruti which the vedas are does not change, while smriti keeps changing in accordance with the times. By smirti, we refer mainly to Manu smriti. Rig vedas says there are four Manus. Manu dharma shastra says there are seven Manus and that we are in the seventh Manu. That shastra says also that its author was the pitamaha, or grandfather, of mankind. Looking back thus at India’s history, you are apt to conclude that Manu was no individual, but a reference to the position of a codifier of dharma, or perhaps a honorific, or just a moral code for humanity.
That work begins with the origin of the universe and ends with a codification of duties of the four varnas and the penalities for swerving from those duties. Those penalties are not all alike, but differ with each varna.
Let us consider to what extent Manu dharma shastra is put into effect and how far it has become altered in consequence of statutory changes and human experience.
Prior to 1938, when depressed classes now called Harijans entered a temple it was closed immediately for the purificatory rite called samprokshanam and only after that rite
was puja performed. In 1938 the Hindu Endowments Board created the statue whereby caste-based discrimination within temple precincts became a penal offense punishable with imprisonment; and since then the practice of samprokshanam following the entry of some categories of people was given up in the temples.
Then there was the practice of child marriage in which the Brahmin girls were married off even at the tender age of eight, on the ground that kanyadhana had to take place before a girl attained puberty. Then came the law inspired by a reformer called Sharda that made marrying off girls before they reached 14 an offense punishable with jailing. And the tradition has developed where girls get married when they desire.
These changes followed alterations in statues. Similar other changes have come about even without statutory alteration, they were in truth effected by people themselves.
Inhabitants of agraharas, usually Brahmins, once stood the risk of excommunication if they crossed the seas and went abroad. Today, everyone seems to vie to have such seafarers for their sons-in-law.
Orthodox Swamis, both Shaivite and Vaishnavite, who refuse to drink tap water supplied by the civic administration or tread the carpeted floor in the homes of their followers, tour foreign countries without inhibition, walk upon the carpets laid everywhere, including temples, because of the requirements of climate, and use the same water as is used by others. Circumstances create a situation where even elders are compelled to give up their long-held practices. The Agnihotraoupasanas stipulated by dharma shastra and sanatana have thus been largely forgotten. Had there been respect for sanatana dharma and Manu dharma shastra, this would not have happened. And, given these changes, it does seem as if Manu dharma and sanatana dharma remain but precepts, hardly practiced.
Temples are constructed at many places in foreign countries, but not one of these can be said to have been built entirely in consonance with agama shastra. Consider one instance. The shastra does not allow puja being performed in a temple with doors closed. No temple in India will do so. But in Hindu temples in foreign countries the doors stay closed because of weather considerations while pujas are carried on inside without restraint. Agama practices have been changed for health reasons.
Manu dharma shastra does not allow Brahmins taking on jobs or engaging in commerce. But today there serve in many professions. This is not wrong. Out of the practical consideration that adherence to dharma shastra will not enable a house holder earn a living, they have got out of shastra’s fold and changed themselves.
This is true not of humankind alone, but even the Almighty.
In krita yuga, Maha vishnu incarnated himself as Rama; and in consonance with the dharma of that time, he told Ravana, as the latter stood in the battlefield shorn of arms, to go home and return next day duly armed. That selfsame Vishnu incarnated himself as krishna in dwapara yuga; and in the Maha Bharata war directed Arjuna to shoot an arrow at a disarmed karna and kill him. Battle strategy compelled him to alter dharma, even though he was the Almighty. And thus we see a transformation in dharma between the krita and dwapara yugas.
Nayanmars and azhwars attached little importance to varnasrama. The tales of Nandanar, Thiruppanazhwar and Thirumangaiazhwar bear testimony to this. It is well
known how Srimad Ramanuja accepted a Non-Brahmins as guru disregarding varanasrama and went on to give mantra upadesa to all irrespective of caste and creed.
Manu dhrma lays down that it is no sin to rob a man with excessive wealth and with no inclination towards charity and give that wealth way to the poor; and that such robbery would invite no penalty. Will present day society accept this?
God in the Indian view is a universal soul although worshipped in a variety of forms as Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu. God is bliss. He permeated everything in the universe. While stressing love, truth, and charity, as all religions do, Hindu culture goes on also to stress faith – a deep faith that without the Almighty nothing is possible.
Adi Sankara held the advaita precept. "Aham Brahmasmi Tattvamasi." Yet, in keeping with the idol worship flowing fron the saguna Brahma principle accepted in India, he wrote stotras like Soundarya Lahari, Shivananda Lahari, and Meenakshi Pancharatnam in praise of variety of deities. Out of a reluctance to convert believers in dvaita, he wrote those stotras in line with their own belief. This is measure of the robustness of India’s faith.
Ancient India and the new India democracy are two different entities, one cannot seek to change present day India and its prevalent environment. We have seen how even the Almighty in his different incarnations altered himself in accordance with the times.
As people evolved into a democracy with equal rights for all, Manu dharma shastra had of necessity to be changed.
It is assuredly difficult to adhere to Manu dharma and sanatana dharma. We can only watch as it changes with changing circumstances, or out of experience, or for practical considerations.
If someone still does adhere to it, I shall worship him as God himself.
Sanatana dharma, sanatana religion, Manu dharma shastra, Bharata varsha, Hindu culture: which of these nomenclaturescorrectly describes the state of our present religion? Difficult to answer. For, with the passage of time, religious practices have altered so much that it is difficult to say what is correct and what is not.
To begin with, sanatana dharma does not seem to be the creation of sage Sanatana who belonged in the Kailasa heredity of Sanaka, Sanathana, Sanatana, and Sanatsujata. In his Siddhantha Saravali, Trilochana Sivachariya says that sanatana dharma was actually part of Saiva siddhanta which deals with sareeyai, kriyai, yoga and jnana.
Also, the sanatana of kailasa heredity does not appear to have written any treatise dealing exclusively with social organization. Even if there were such a book, Indian culture and Hinduism are not book-based, but rest on the experience of mankind. The dictionary definition for sanatana is indeed ancient. With other religions, the mane of their founder and the time of their founding are available. But not with Hinduism. Especially the time when it was founded. Heaven alone knows. This being so, and with sanatana defined as ancient, one can say that Hinduism could have acquired the appellation sanatana dharma with the passage of time.
One bit is evidence for the ancient nature of Bharat is to be found in the sankalpa in all religious ceremonies, where the expression "kali yuge prathame padhe" occurs. That expression signifies that we have crossed the krita yuga, treta yuga and dwapara yuga and are now in the first quarter of kali yuga. Puranic proofs, such as that the Ramayana belonged to the krita yuga and the Maha Bharat to the dwapara yuga, reinforce this truth. Yet almanacs, while referring to the saka calendar names after Salivahana and Vikrama, number the present year as 1917. Hardly anyone seems to give a thought to this.
Consider Manu dharma shastra a little deeply and you find that sruti which the vedas are does not change, while smriti keeps changing in accordance with the times. By smirti, we refer mainly to Manu smriti. Rig vedas says there are four Manus. Manu dharma shastra says there are seven Manus and that we are in the seventh Manu. That shastra says also that its author was the pitamaha, or grandfather, of mankind. Looking back thus at India’s history, you are apt to conclude that Manu was no individual, but a reference to the position of a codifier of dharma, or perhaps a honorific, or just a moral code for humanity.
That work begins with the origin of the universe and ends with a codification of duties of the four varnas and the penalities for swerving from those duties. Those penalties are not all alike, but differ with each varna.
Let us consider to what extent Manu dharma shastra is put into effect and how far it has become altered in consequence of statutory changes and human experience.
Prior to 1938, when depressed classes now called Harijans entered a temple it was closed immediately for the purificatory rite called samprokshanam and only after that rite
was puja performed. In 1938 the Hindu Endowments Board created the statue whereby caste-based discrimination within temple precincts became a penal offense punishable with imprisonment; and since then the practice of samprokshanam following the entry of some categories of people was given up in the temples.
Then there was the practice of child marriage in which the Brahmin girls were married off even at the tender age of eight, on the ground that kanyadhana had to take place before a girl attained puberty. Then came the law inspired by a reformer called Sharda that made marrying off girls before they reached 14 an offense punishable with jailing. And the tradition has developed where girls get married when they desire.
These changes followed alterations in statues. Similar other changes have come about even without statutory alteration, they were in truth effected by people themselves.
Inhabitants of agraharas, usually Brahmins, once stood the risk of excommunication if they crossed the seas and went abroad. Today, everyone seems to vie to have such seafarers for their sons-in-law.
Orthodox Swamis, both Shaivite and Vaishnavite, who refuse to drink tap water supplied by the civic administration or tread the carpeted floor in the homes of their followers, tour foreign countries without inhibition, walk upon the carpets laid everywhere, including temples, because of the requirements of climate, and use the same water as is used by others. Circumstances create a situation where even elders are compelled to give up their long-held practices. The Agnihotraoupasanas stipulated by dharma shastra and sanatana have thus been largely forgotten. Had there been respect for sanatana dharma and Manu dharma shastra, this would not have happened. And, given these changes, it does seem as if Manu dharma and sanatana dharma remain but precepts, hardly practiced.
Temples are constructed at many places in foreign countries, but not one of these can be said to have been built entirely in consonance with agama shastra. Consider one instance. The shastra does not allow puja being performed in a temple with doors closed. No temple in India will do so. But in Hindu temples in foreign countries the doors stay closed because of weather considerations while pujas are carried on inside without restraint. Agama practices have been changed for health reasons.
Manu dharma shastra does not allow Brahmins taking on jobs or engaging in commerce. But today there serve in many professions. This is not wrong. Out of the practical consideration that adherence to dharma shastra will not enable a house holder earn a living, they have got out of shastra’s fold and changed themselves.
This is true not of humankind alone, but even the Almighty.
In krita yuga, Maha vishnu incarnated himself as Rama; and in consonance with the dharma of that time, he told Ravana, as the latter stood in the battlefield shorn of arms, to go home and return next day duly armed. That selfsame Vishnu incarnated himself as krishna in dwapara yuga; and in the Maha Bharata war directed Arjuna to shoot an arrow at a disarmed karna and kill him. Battle strategy compelled him to alter dharma, even though he was the Almighty. And thus we see a transformation in dharma between the krita and dwapara yugas.
Nayanmars and azhwars attached little importance to varnasrama. The tales of Nandanar, Thiruppanazhwar and Thirumangaiazhwar bear testimony to this. It is well
known how Srimad Ramanuja accepted a Non-Brahmins as guru disregarding varanasrama and went on to give mantra upadesa to all irrespective of caste and creed.
Manu dhrma lays down that it is no sin to rob a man with excessive wealth and with no inclination towards charity and give that wealth way to the poor; and that such robbery would invite no penalty. Will present day society accept this?
God in the Indian view is a universal soul although worshipped in a variety of forms as Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu. God is bliss. He permeated everything in the universe. While stressing love, truth, and charity, as all religions do, Hindu culture goes on also to stress faith – a deep faith that without the Almighty nothing is possible.
Adi Sankara held the advaita precept. "Aham Brahmasmi Tattvamasi." Yet, in keeping with the idol worship flowing fron the saguna Brahma principle accepted in India, he wrote stotras like Soundarya Lahari, Shivananda Lahari, and Meenakshi Pancharatnam in praise of variety of deities. Out of a reluctance to convert believers in dvaita, he wrote those stotras in line with their own belief. This is measure of the robustness of India’s faith.
Ancient India and the new India democracy are two different entities, one cannot seek to change present day India and its prevalent environment. We have seen how even the Almighty in his different incarnations altered himself in accordance with the times.
As people evolved into a democracy with equal rights for all, Manu dharma shastra had of necessity to be changed.
It is assuredly difficult to adhere to Manu dharma and sanatana dharma. We can only watch as it changes with changing circumstances, or out of experience, or for practical considerations.
If someone still does adhere to it, I shall worship him as God himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment