Artha, Kama, Moksha – And a Gaping Hole in the Middle : What Would You Choose, Modern Hindus ?

The correct, non-contradictory way to live is to accept the existential truth that if we love something, we must also support the structures that make that thing possible. If we claim to love Sanatana Dharma, we have to inevitably also love the traditions that give shape to that ‘religion’. And once we love those traditions, we also have to inevitably support the social structures that are the vehicles for the maintenance of those traditions, that is, the Sanatana community. It cannot be that we claim to love Sanatana Dharma but at the same time work to undermine Sanatana traditions and Sanatana community.

‘Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully … The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo who has received an English education ever continues to be sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy. But many profess themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity … It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect’. – Thomas Babbington Macaulay, Letter to his Father, 1836

What is Sanatana about something that keeps ‘evolving’ ?

For the word ‘Sanatana’ to have any meaning, either it must refer to a set of practices that are capable of standing the test of time, or a set of values that are immutable even as practices change. So, if, as many of us believe, our practices have to ‘evolve’ in order to ‘keep up with the times,’  then is it not vital that we state and define what the rock-bottom unchangeable dharmic values are that we use as a metric to judge whether a change in practice can be considered evolution, or adjustment, or adaptation, or plain surrender ?

Let us assume that we have in fact defined a set of dharmic values that we hold dear and will never compromise with. Would we not now use those values to judge ‘the times’ that we live in ? When we do that, will we continue to ‘keep up with the times’ if ‘the times’ themselves are revealed to be adharmic under the lens of our values ? Would we not ask where ‘the times’ have arisen from, and what the core values of ‘the times’ are ? Would we not enquire if those core values are foreign or dharmic, and even if they are foreign, whether
they are complementary to Sanatana values or antithetical to them ?

Some key questions remain un-asked and un-answered in our mad rush towards the Western river.

If our religion is constantly evolving, and if our traditions are mere superstitious weakness, then we have to ask ourselves what the contours of this evolving religion are in the absence of our traditions.

What would give it shape, form, exceptionality, definition and differentiation ? Going further, if we are serious, we have to ask, what kind of post-traditional social institutions we need to design, and how we would ensure that they continue to reflect sanatana metaphysics and aesthetics while holding its morality at the core ?

For example, Ganapathy Sthapathi, who came from an ancestral lineage of shilpis, entered the modern educational universe and eventually founded the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture in Mahabalipuram. Bharat now had an institution designed by a real practitioner to preserve, transmit, and nurture his ancestral knowledge. Any person with interest could now join the university and learn the art. So far so good. But, what happened to that institution immediately after Sthapathi’s death ? The five-year course was reduced to a three-year course. All Sanskrit learning was scrapped (even though all the ancestral literature is in Sanskrit). The university has become a hot-bed for political one-upmanship.

Secularization of the knowledge tears it apart

These are not my personal observations; these are observations made by a graduate whom I spoke to. There are two problems here that I instinctively see : One, the secularization of the knowledge tears it apart from its original intended context making it nothing more than a technical manual; and two, the steep drop in quality as a consequence of turning a sacred body of knowledge over to a set of politicians, technocrats, and careerists.

So, how do we propose to tackle, seriously, this issue of Hindu institution building in the modern world ? How do we retain context without birth-based traditions, and how do we maintain excellence without community ? These are very important questions to answer.

Unless we answer these questions and demonstrate our solutions in practice, we have no business interfering with traditional social structures. On the other hand, if we don’t even think it is important that we ask and answer these questions, well then … we modern Hindus are simply no longer Hindus in anything akin to the old way. We are all converts, either into Christianity Lite or some shade of Atheism (no matter the Ganesha murthi in our puja rooms).

If tradition is erased then we have nothing that holds the community together. In fact, many of us, depending on which shade of ‘modern’ we are, already believe that the Sanatana community is evil,  backward, or regressive. So, we have now decided that along with tradition, community too must go.

This brings us to the question – ‘How do we, the adherents of this evolving religion, plan to transmit reverence for the contours of that religion to the next generation in the absence of community ?’ What is going to be the institutional mechanism by which our values are going to be bequeathed to the next generation ? Because without that mechanism, we are looking at extinction in one generation. Are we going to design a ‘Hindu Church’ or are we going to have once a week congregations and daily calls to prayer ? Or are we smart enough to design something totally original here and now ?

The phrase ‘We must be strong’ has two parts – ‘we’ and ‘strong’. If we let go of the ‘We’ in our mad rush to be strong (or united, or to ‘keep up with the times,’ or whatever), then what exactly would it be in aid of, if we are now no longer ourselves ? If we are anyway going to stand against our ancestors’ traditions and beliefs, then why not simply convert and be strong Muslims or united Christians ? What is the difference ? It is obvious that self-definition is the first step in this journey to strength. Who is it that wants to be strong ? Why does that entity want to be strong ?

Let us gather the courage to define the terms of our self-belief. Why do we care if we are Hindu or not ?

• A moral conviction about the empathy of ancestors is the fundamental building block of a civilization. To know that our inheritance is a moral one. A sense of Gratitude. Gratitude creates the desire to preserve, belong and pass on. – Raghava Krishna, via Twitter, 2023

There are many among us today, well-wishers and bhaktas even, who claim to love the ‘religion’ but not the traditions and communities. It has been argued that this new conception of our Dharma is essential for our adaptation to the modern world of technology and Individualism. Maybe it is … but let us be clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Dharma of our ancestors.

The idea of Chesterson’s Fence is useful at this juncture. “Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place,” he said.

Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don’t grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and ‘had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody.’ Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an axe to it.

The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences : Second-and third-order effects we don’t want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.

The use of traditions as ancient as Sanatana traditions requires much sadhana and insight

To understand, therefore, the use of traditions as ancient as Sanatana traditions (and the need for social structures that held those traditions) requires much sadhana and insight. It is far better that we follow the lead of our acharyas on these matters rather than engage in individual-driven laissez-faire chop and change. It may well be that we fail to follow the traditions in this Kali Yuga, but let us not claim that whatever we do under the influence of Western memes of equality and choice, that suits our convenience, is in fact sanctioned by tradition. It is not.

Traditions do change, but under the guiding hand of fully engaged masters and practitioners, not you and me. How can someone not fully invested in a tradition be allowed to bring about changes in that tradition? It makes absolutely no sense. But the phenomenon of people who do not believe in the traditions but are, ironically, intent on appropriating or erasing the same traditions is a growing phenomenon.

In the Sanatana world where invitation rather than imposition prevails, if one has a problem with a particular tradition, one is free to leave, create a new tradition, or engage in dialogue. That is exactly what jaati is for. But unfortunately for us, jaati – nature is fast fading from our consciousness and the idea of change, instead of being accretional as it used to be, it has become viral.

Take for example the Sabarimala issue where changes in a practice were demanded by people who had no bhakti in the practice (let alone knowledge of). So, were they believers or not ?

If they were believers, would they not want to show their belief by following the traditions ? And if they were non-believers, then why do they or should they care ?

This self-contradictory stance is taken by disruptors and a number of quasi-Hindus of the reformist bent of mind (including the liberal Indian legislature and judiciary).

See the latest incursion into a purely Hindu religious space –

‘Madras High Court : No more elephants for Tamil Nadu temples’

If we are constantly using foreign ideals to judge and manipulate our indigenous traditions, then we really have to ask, ‘Who the hell are we ?’ If we were conscious Sanatanis, shouldn’t this process of judging be the other way around ? Should we not be judging Western ideals using dharmic values and outcomes as benchmarks ?

I have attempted to start this purva-paksha in this essay.

Change or evolution (if you will) has to be positioned with respect to dharmic archetypes, dharmic values and/or dharmic outcomes. It is only then that we can weigh what we are likely to lose against what we are likely to gain when we make those changes. And it is only then that evolution takes the form of revitalization rather than the erasure that goes by the name of reform today. So, let us start to look at the unconscious and unconsidered change that Hindu samaj has been subjected to in the last two centuries as ‘Adaptation to Modernity’ and not as ‘Reform of Hinduism’.

This simple mental trick will help change the way we approach these changes. We will start to see that adaptation may be necessary but it does not have to be packaged as ‘progress’ or ‘reform’. We will start to see that adaptation has a purpose higher than merely serving as a doorway to Westernization… and that purpose is the long-term protection of all that is beautiful and eternal about our religion.

No matter the compromises we may have to make, they all become worthwhile only if we retain a sense of that higher purpose; otherwise, we are on a one-way path to deracination. This requires the state to enter into a sense of its true purpose and become the upholder and builder (along with dharmic private parties) of cultural institutions that hold and protect different parts of our essence.

From such a position of self-belief, all the issues that plague us will find resolution or compromise. But, if we start (under the influence of Western memes) with the assumption that the Sanatana community is an irredeemable evil, as many on both the Left and Right do, then all attempts at ‘reform’ ultimately sow the seeds of erasure.

We are today on the brink of such an extinction.

The far-Left wants to deny Sanatana unity in their imagined pursuit of diversity, little realizing that it is that unity that has resulted in the continued survival of the diversity they so feverishly pursue.

The far-Right, on the other hand, wants to erase Sanatana diversity in their pursuit of national unity, little realizing that it is the maintenance of that diversity that has been at the heart of our Sanatana self-definition, and it is that identity that has lent us our differentiation in the face of Abrahamic cultural desertification. Only the ordinary Hindu knows that ‘we are one, but we are not the same, and we’ve got to carry each other’.

(Courtesy : Excerpts from an Article by Maragatham posted on indiafacts.org.in; March 9, 2023)

(The Author returned to Bharat after earning an engineering degree in the US. He moved to a farm in rural Madurai District. Working with rural communities in both farming and construction brought him face to face with the untruths of universalist Western education resulting in his conscious gharwapsi to Dharma, Hinduism, and the ways of his ancestors.)

What is going to be the institutional mechanism by which our values are going to be bequeathed to the next generation ?