Of essence and substance

Like many others before me and as many will, after me, I always wondered what Hinduism is all about. Questions about this way of life that was not branded a religion for centuries, always haunt me. When I look at the format of it, it defies that of the conventional religions. Dig up the history to the antiquity, and you do not come across Hinduism as a religion or belief.

Historians and strangers to this land never understood the concepts prevailing here and preferred to broadband the people as Hindus in general, because of a river they had to cross to enter the Indo-Gangetic plains. Whatever might have been the descriptions that flourished – and led to disputes and arguments – this way of life is all about freedom, of thought, act and deed.

Look at the fact that Hindus, as the practitioners of this way of life are called, worship a multitude of Gods and that too in an accommodative way. When one enters a temple premises, one finds several Gods residing there and blessing the devotees. Each of these has his or her own following. Again, coming to the gender question, Goddesses are equals among the pantheon and sometimes more powerful than their counterparts.

The deities of Hinduism have evolved from the Vedic era through the medieval era across the so-called Hinduism's diverse traditions. There are personal Gods and Vedic deities and puranic illustrations with distinct personalities and though there have been clashes among the followers, the generally accepted principle is that they are all one and the same – of the same ultimate reality. Each of the deities inspired his or her own traditions, be it Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and accepted Saguna Brahma as a means to realise the Nirguna Brahma.

The Murtis and Pratimas come in all shapes and colours for the believers. Accommodating all these over a period, Hinduism also gave rise to Charvakas who rejected all deities and the very concept of Gods and Goddesses. The British colonial era movements later gave room for Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj which adopted monotheistic concept on the lines of the Abrahamic religions. Of course, the deities have been adopted by other religions outside India too.

The beauty in all these was the fact that Hindus are not monotheistic and do not believe in One God alone. Some of them like Charvakas do not believe in the concept at all. Thus, it gives the Hindus the liberty to choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanistic or rationalistic.

This is the essence of Hinduism. It gives you a choice, a wider one at that to choose your Gods and Goddesses and also no Gods and Goddesses. Similarly, this very nature gives the Hindus the zeal to experiment with everything including with their beliefs and non-beliefs. Anyone here can proclaim he or she is a Hindu or the reverse of it, that he or she is a non-Hindu. How does it matter when it is a way of life.

Should it matter to any of us when it is all about personal beliefs? Should it lead to rancour at all? When we can live with so many Gods and Goddesses, could not we live with those who shun them or those who believe in only one God? Cannot we co-exist with those who do so? As far as any of the religious texts is concerned, the only teaching that it would propagate is this: Be truthful to yourself, be moralistic and be peaceful. Beyond this, nothing should make sense to us. Is not it so?

Having said that, let me also gently remind one that the varied nature of this way of life (Hinduism) also allows an Artistic licence in every walk of life. This art licence, historical licence, dramatic licence, poetic licence, narrative licence, creative licence have all become part of Hinduism from times immemorial. Just imagine monotheism and the limits it imposes on one’s imagination with its rigid formatism. Lines, lines and lines everywhere! Not one to be crossed, those say.

But, Hinduism flourished all these millennia because of the freedom it gave to everyone to do what he or she wants to, with his or her life. So why is there a controversy now over everything that stands for this way of life? Plurality is the essence and tolerance is the substance of what is generally termed as Hinduism. These two, substance and essence, are something that it is difficult to do without, in both ordinary language and any serious ontology.

If we meddle with it today in the name of religion, caste, sect, practice, tradition or region, it, the Hinduism, loses its very nature and uniqueness of durability. Being accommodative is what makes it what it is. That is why it is persisting over a time. It is enduring. As the ancient masters like Aristotle and Plato felt, this non-monotheistic religion called Hinduism comes into existence or cease to exist or it may be uncreated or indestructible, but either way, it has an extended existence in time.

This substance of Hinduism as "separable' only means that its existence is not dependent on other things. It exists independently and it can be separated from other things that exist. So, those who are now opposing the artistic licence of a book writer, a film maker, a journalist, an atheist or groups, should understand that the diverse views only strengthen the nation's character and the society's resolve to grow and develop.

Their views are now offending those who hold on to the past dearly without allowing any concessions or accommodation. Interpretation, reinterpretation and misrepresentation as some call it is leading to the controversy, such people argue. But, is that really so? Does anyone care to know how many Ramayanas we have in this world. Though the Valmiki Ramayana is taken as the standard one, there are myriad variations in the stories told and recalled in other Ramayanas.

Did someone raise any objection to the Adbhutha Ramayana because it says Narada cursed Goddess Laxmi to be born a human being on earth to a Rakshasi? Valmiki Ramayana tells us the story of a human being while Adhyatma Ramayana tells us from a divine view point. It is said that nearly 300 Ramayanas exist now, each picking up the threads from original Ramayana and exploring the stories of the epic in their own style and tenor.

Do we draw offense from this creative license? So what if a book says something that has not been said so far and a film shoots a story for entertainment in a different way. Very history of the country is interpreted differently by different people. Kings and emperors who ruled this land have been termed good or bad depending on the locus standi of the person saying so. People build temples for heroines in this land and offer aarti to the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi at a temple.

Attempting to drag the present into the past leads to the unknown. And so does, assessing the past from today's perspective. If the nation is to develop and progress, its people have to be modern and progressive as the way of life of this land has taught us. Compressing certain aspects of life into a mould and saying this is the religion or tradition, leads us nowhere. Despite the prevalence of Adwaitha philosophy, this way of life could not remove the stigma of casteism. That should agitate us more, not films, books and opinions. Don't we have better things to do with life?