Books

Hindu Encounter with Modernity

Excerpt

One of the key issues in this study was the need to find a balance between critical scholarship and religious faith. Wilfred Cantwell Smith has pointed out that one of the objections most often directed to any scholarship undertaken by the religious insider is that the work is inherently unscholarly because it lacks necessary detachment and critical analysis. On the other hand, the religious adherent often says that any scholarship performed by the outsider lacks an understanding of the essence of religious faith and therefore cannot adequately comprehend a religious matter. On these grounds one could easily conclude that any scholarly study of religion is inherently inadequate, or that any study of religion is inherently unscholarly.

There are, no doubt, elements of truth in both arguments. The purpose of the hagiography is to kindle faith, and in order to achieve this end there may be an emphasis on those facts and interpretations that nurture faith and a tendency to disregard the data that do not nurture faith. The hagiography is an appeal to the heart, whereas the critical biography is an appeal to the head. While both have their respective places, it is important to distinguish between the two.

The present study is not hagiographic. Instead it is an attempt by a Vaishnava religious adherent to write a critical biography and exegesis of Bhaktivinoda's thought. When I began this research I had two specific concerns. Was it possible for the religious insider to study his own tradition in a critical way and still maintain religious faith in the tradition? And if so, what was the precise nature of the critical approach that would permit such a study?

I eventually found the solution to my predicament in the writings of Bhaktivinoda himself. I chanced to find a copy of Bhaktivinoda's first major work, the Krsna-samhita (1879). The text was in Sanskrit and Bengali, so initially I had no idea what information it contained. As I read the document I was amazed to learn that Bhaktivinoda was attempting to analyze Indian history and to show the development of Vaishnavism according to what he called the adhunika-vada, or the modern approach. Here was Bhaktivinoda himself taking a keen and discriminating look at Indian history and Vaishnava religious traditions according to the techniques of modern (nineteenth century) critical scholarship. He offered a plausible date for the Bhagavata according to internal and extra-textual evidence; he pointed out corruptions in the text, and he brought attention to the human weaknesses of its author; all things that the religious insider seemingly should not do. At the same time, I saw a personality who obviously maintained firm faith in the Vaishnava tradition. In his Krsna-samhita Bhaktivinoda was showing that it was indeed possible to take a critical look at one's own tradition, and at the same time maintain a deep and abiding faith within that tradition.

I was deeply impressed, and I wondered how it was possible. I had never seen a religious insider assuming such a bold position as a critical historian. I sensed that some of Bhaktivinoda's basic theological assumptions must be essentially different from my own or from what I had experienced so far as a Caitanya Vaishnava. Perhaps the tradition-modernity issues that confronted Bengal's elite during the nineteenth century had something to do with Bhaktivinoda's seemingly radical approach. On this basis I felt that I had found the necessary license with which to proceed. Not only could I draw on Bhaktivinoda for support, but now I was especially interested to discover the basic theological perspective that allowed him to proceed as he had in his Krsna-samhita.

This study also endeavors not only to describe the life of Bhaktivinoda in terms of a critical biography, but in the process to chart a new approach to scholarship within the Caitanya Vaishnava tradition that has only recently appeared in the West. Of course, within India there is a well established academic tradition among the Caitanya Vaishnava community. In this regard I am thinking of the work of the late Biman Bihari Majumdar, or the critically edited texts of the Vrindavan goswamis by Puri Dasa, or the work on Jiva Goswami by Mahanambrata Brahmachari. But in the West such an academic tradition barely exists among the contemporary followers of Caitanya. Therefore, this dissertation is an attempt to help chart new territory, not only in terms of facts, but also in terms of approach. It is my firm conviction that if the Caitanya movement is to take hold in the West, then, in addition to its traditional approach, it must also develop a critical and intellectual tradition that is attuned to the demands of modern scholarship. In other words, the Caitanya movement must become indigenous to the West just as there is a well established tradition of critical scholarship among believing Jews and Christians.

The following is a short critique of the introductory portion (Upakramanika) to the Sri-krishna-samhita by Bhaktivinoda Thakur, which I believe may have important implications for the presentation of Vaishnava theology in academic circles. I begin with a brief description of the Sri-krishna-samhita, then follow with an overview of the times which brought about the writing of this important document, and finally end with a discussion of the possible ramifications and relevance of this text for interpreting Krishna consciousness in a modern world.

The Sri-krishna-samhita is the first of three major Vaishnava philosophical works written by Bhaktivinoda Thakur, the other two works being Caitanya-siksamrita (1886) and Jaiva-dharma (1893). The Sri-krishna-samhita is written in both Sanskrit and Bengali and is comprised of three sections: an Bengali introduction of about 80 pages, 281 Sanskrit verses accompanied by an elaborate Bengali translation and commentary, and a Bengali conclusion of about 45 pages. In his autobiography Bhaktivinoda mentions that he first began to write the Sri-krishna-samhita while he lived in Puri between 1870 and 1874. At that time he wrote most of the Sanskrit verses. Later in 1878 while he lived in Narial, he completed the work by adding the introduction and conclusion. The work was eventually published in 1879. Later on in 1903 it was again published in his journal, Sajjana-toshani. In 1880 he sent copies of it to America and Europe. We know from Bhaktivinoda's autobiography that Ralph Waldo Emerson in America, and Reinhold Rost in England, both received copies of the text. This is the first known instance of Caitanya Vaisnavism reaching the West.

The Sri-krishna-samhita was written by Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the context of the Bengal Renaissance-- a period of intense cultural and technological change during the 19th century that led to the development of the Bhadralok. The Bhadralok were the class of British educated Bengali intellectuals who were designed by the British to fill the numerous levels of civil administration. As British power gradually took hold in Bengal and the number of English language institutions grew, so did the number of English educated Bhadralok. Gradually they became a strong and distinct class within Bengali society. Bhaktivinoda Thakura was a member of the Bhadralok and he addressed his writings to his fellow Bhadralok.

Bhaktivinoda begins the Sri-krishna-samhita with a description of two types of men, one he calls Bharabahis, meaning literally one who carries a burden and the other Saragrahis or one who searches for the essence. The Bharabahis are the masses of men who are attached to religious externals (lingas), which he classifies as customs, ritual and doctrine. He points out that sectarian fighting and religious discrimination are the result of the Bharabahi's over attachment to religious externals.

In contrast to the Bharabahis are the Saragrahis, or the great souls, who are unattached to religious externals and spend their time seeking the essence of truth. The Saragrahis are few in number and do not organize themselves into religious sects. They recognize the Bharabahi's need for religious externals and so they participate in the use of these externals to a certain extent.

In addition to the Bharabahis and Saragrahis, Bhaktivinoda categorizes men according to their degree of faith, which he sees as the essential driving force behind any endeavor. These are the komala-sraddhas (men of low faith), madhyama-adhikaris (men of middle faith) and uttama-adhikaris (men of the highest faith). Here Bhaktivinoda does not refer only to Vaishnava komala, madhyama and uttama adhikaris, but to the adhikaras of any faith or dharma. The term 'komala-sraddha' describes the ordinary man of low faith and no power of independent thinking. Due to his limited faith he makes little progress, but with proper association and training he may be elevated. The term 'madhyama-adhikari' describes a man with strong faith and independent reasoning ability who, if given the proper situation is capable great advancement. The uttama-adhikari is the man of the highest faith, who has achieved perfection.

There is a gulf of difference between the way komala-sraddhas and madhyama-adhikaris must be approached for elevation, especially in spiritual life. In fact this difference is the primary reason why Bhaktivinoda wrote the Sri-krishna-samhita. He says that the Vedas are difficult to understand even for a man of intellectual ability and suggests that one of the deficiencies in the Vedic tradition is that most of its commentaries, including the Bhagavatam commentaries, were written by Saragrahis for komala-sraddhas and not for madhyama-adhikaris. This meant that the presentation of Vedic knowledge was designed to reach a particular mentality namely, the mind of the komala-sraddha, which unfortunately excluded most madhyama-adhikaris. The result was the development of a spiritually disenfranchised group of Aryan intellectuals who could be easily drawn away from Vedic philosophy and into foreign ways of thinking if approached in a suitable manner. The rise of Buddhism in India presumably was one example of this. Bhaktivinoda, however, is referring to the advent of European thought, ie. modern scientific reasoning, amongst the Bengali intelligentsia (Bhadralok), who had acquired a taste for modern ideas and thereby quickly lost faith in the Vedic tradition, which was not tailored to their intellectual needs. As a result, these madhyama-adhikaris adopted various foreign philosophies and religions or else they created their own theologies.

The express purpose of the Sri-krishna-samhita was to catch the attention of these madhyama-adhikaris and lead them to the path of devotion by providing them with a rational way of understanding and accepting the Vedic tradition in the light of their acquired modern outlook. That Bhaktivinoda was British educated and at the same time able to assimilate Krishna consciousness, i.e. Caitanya Vaisnavism, into one synthesis was the beginnings of something exceedingly important, viz., the modernization of the Caitanya Vaishnava tradition. Most of the Bengali intelligentsia were unable to make such a synthesis and when confronted with modern ideas and values, they either rejected outright their traditional Vedic roots and became Christians or joined the Brahma Samaj, or they adopted some diluted form of Hinduism in which so much traditional practice and belief was lost as to make the whole process spiritually benign. A minority of madhyamas retreated altogether from modern thinking and become traditionalists, which meant they lost their ability to communicate with the modern world.

There is no room in this paper to discuss in detail the concepts of tradition and modernity. Suffice to say that those Bengalis who received a British education and who worked with the British were forced to give up, to one degree or another, their traditional perspective and adopt a modern outlook. The modern outlook, more than anything else, is characterized by rationalism which I define as the attempt to interpret the universe purely in terms of thought, to regulate life in accordance with the principles of reason and to eliminate as far as possible everything irrational. Rationalism means that traditional religious customs and beliefs have to satisfy the test of reason if they are going to survive in a modern context. M. N. Srinivas has studied this process as it affected Hindu traditions in India and notes that "rationalism involves, among other things the replacement of traditional beliefs and ideas by modern knowledge."

The classic example of this is found in the work of one of Bhaktivinoda's colleagues, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, who like Bhaktivinoda, wrote a book called Krishna-caritra. Bankim Chandra's work is similar to Bhaktivinoda's Sri-krishna-samhita in that it tries to present the life of Krishna to the British educated Bengali intelligentsia i.e. madhyama-adhikaris in such a way as they can accept it.

In his introduction Bankim Chandra sums up the feelings of the 19th century madhyama-adhikari about Krishna in the following statement:

"Krishna is God incarnate, but how do people look upon God? They take Him as a thief in His childhood, stealing butter; as an adulterer in his youth, leading innumerable milkmaids away from the path of chastity; and as a rogue in his maturity, having taken the lives of Drona and others by deceit. Is this the character of God? Is it reasonable that one who is purity itself and is the repository of all that is true, whose name dispels all impurity and impiety would indulge in sin while in human incarnation?"

There is no question that when pitted against arguments and reason the rationalist attitude of the Bengali intellectual would not allow him to cling to mere tradition and belief like the uneducated common folk (komala-sraddhas). Therefore Bankim Chandra's solution to the life of Krishna is predictable:

"I have studied the Puranas and historical materials to the best of my ability, with the purpose of ascertaining the real character of Sri Krishna as described in the Puranas and history, and I have come to the conclusion that the current sinful anecdotes about Sri Krishna are without any foundation and if these are discarded, what we are left with is of the utmost purity, sanctity and grandeur."

In other words Bankim Chandra's solution to the problem of accepting tradition in the context of modern thought is to eliminate those aspect of traditional belief, which do not satisfy the test of reason. His Krishna-caritra is an exposition of Krishna's life, free of any objectionable character traits found in the Puranas. However, from the Vaishnava perspective, such a wholesale carving away of tradition is to render the whole theology spiritual bankrupt. Bankim Chandra's synthesis of tradition and modernity has no spiritual integrity because it has eliminated Krishna lila, the spiritual essence of the tradition.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura, however, arrives at a completely different conclusion than Bankim Chandra. Using a rationalist approach Bhaktivinoda also synthesizes tradition and modernity, but unlike Bankim Chandra, Bhaktivinoda maintains the spiritual integrity of the tradition. He, of course, accepts Krishna-lila. He does this by employing a two level scheme of interpretation. On one hand he uses rationalism to analyze Vedic history, the compilation of Vedic texts and the development of Vaishnava dharma in India, but on the other hand he shows the limitations of logic and stops short of trying to grasp the Transcendent with mere reason. Instead of rejecting that which can not be understood by reason as mythology, like Bankim Chandra does, Bhaktivinoda teaches us to approach the Transcendent with faith.

Bhaktivinoda's methodology is best summed up in his own words, "When the stream of logic meets the river of faith, the accumulated moss of misconception is removed and flows away." Bhaktivinoda never mentions specifically what he means by the "accumulated moss", but presumably he is referring to a whole range of sectarian, superstitious, and sentimental notions that had been created by Bharabahi komala-sraddhas and madhyama-adhikaris due to their blind acceptance of Vedic tradition or their over attachment to religious externals. Bhaktivinoda knows such blind acceptance and attachment to externals will never satisfy the discerning and skeptical intellect of Saragrahi madhyama-adhikaris, especially in the modern context where the Vedic tradition must compete with rational knowledge in the spiritual marketplace. Therefore, in order to capture the intellect of the madhyama-adhikaris Bhaktivinoda actively use the tool of logic.

However, before Bhaktivinoda Thakura begins his analysis he makes the following statement:

"We have to determine just when the Vaishnava dharma became established in our county, but before discussing this it is necessary to discuss many other topics. Therefore, first we will discuss, according to the modern opinion, the dates of the most important past events in India history. Then we will determine the date of many of the respected books. As we fix these dates we will establish the history of the Vaishnava dharma, and whatever seems clear, according to the modern opinion, we will discuss. Personally we follow the judgment of time according to ancient custom, but in order to benefit people of the present age we will accept the modern system."

What follows is a detailed analysis of Indian historiography in which he establishes an interesting dating scheme. Here are a few examples:

1. The Aryans first entered India from the North West and subjugated the indigenous tribes around 4463 B.C.

2. The Battle of Kuruksetra took place in 1912 B.C. (3976 years ago),

3. The present Mahabharata is not the original Mahabharata written by Vedavyasa, but one put together by a later Vyasa,

4. The Ramayana achieved its present form sometime after the compilation of the Mahabharata in about 500 B.C.

5. The Puranas were written successively between 400 A.D. and 1000 A.D. The Markendeya Purana is the oldest and the Srimad Bhagavatam is the youngest.

6. The Srimad Bhagavatam is a southern text, likely written during the 10th century by some unknown respected person who had rightfully assumed the title of Vyasa.

Bhaktivinoda arrives at these conclusions through a system of textual analysis. It remarkable that he does not simply rely on an existing modern dating scheme, of which there were many during his time, but takes the effort to prepare his own analysis and reach his own conclusions. Where he doubts his own analysis, he invites future Saragrahis to arrive at a better conclusion. This indicates that he took the matter seriously. In this way Bhaktivinoda uses a rational methodology to show the rationale for accepting the path of devotion.

Bhaktivinoda never hesitates to deal with a secular subject matter in a rational manner. He writes,

"What I have outlined in the Introduction concerning history and time is based on Mimamsa logic and does not obstruct the attainment of the Transcendent. History and time calculation are secular subject matters and when they are judged according to sound reasoning a lot of good can be done for India."

Even regarding the dating of the Srimad Bhagavatam, the most sacred of texts, Bhaktivinoda is not afraid to use the tools of logic and reasoning. He writes, "The Sri Bhagavata has no birth because it is eternal, constant and without beginning, but in the opinion of modern scholars, this king of books first appeared at some time, in some place and in the consciousness of some great soul and judging this is very agreeable."

On the other hand, Bhaktivinoda Thakura teaches us that the Transcendent is beyond the purview of reasoning and must be accepted on faith. He writes, "The progress of Vaishnava dharma is not dependent on these types of conclusions [the dating of history and texts]. We know that the Vaishnava dharma, the Vedas and the Bhagavata are based on eternal principles." "There is no other means to verify his subject matter [of the Absolute] except by the respective conclusions drawn by the great souls described in the Bhagavatam" "Saragrahi Vaishnavas give up the employment of reasoning in relation to the Transcendent."

The Introduction to the Sri-krishna-samhita, itself, is an amazing document, not because Bhaktivinoda's particular dating scheme is so important, as the very fact that he arrives at a dating scheme in the first place, and the seriousness with which he does it.

My first reading of the text left me in utter shock. For years I have struggled to assimilate what I had learned from Vaishnava tradition and what I was learning in academia. It seemed that the voice of tradition was the voice faith calling me to Krishna, and my academic associations were the voice of modernity, demanding that I be rational and in a real sense drawing me away from Krishna. I felt torn between tradition and modernity, between faith and reasoning. It was impossible to relinquish my rational mind and put faith in a religious tradition that was not always logical. Simultaneously I sensed the genuine nature and sweetness of the tradition. My solution was to compartmentalize the two, hoping to one day find a synthesis. When I began reading the Sri-krishna-samhita I soon found myself listening a new voice–that of a great teacher boldly putting the two worlds together. Without warning, the doors holding those two worlds apart, suddenly burst open allowing waters of both traditions to rush together.

My first reaction was to separate the two by minimizing the importance of the Sri-krishna-samhita. After all, Bhaktivinoda had only recently become a Vaishnava when he wrote his book. He had not even taken initiation, but I soon realized that he had re-published the work many years later in 1903 in his own journal, Sajjana-tosani. There was no question, that the work had to be taken seriously.

What Bhaktivinoda has accomplished in the Sri-krishna-samhita is to separate the mundane from the Transcendent to a degree that we have never seen a Vaishnava do before. Bhaktivinoda shows us that the mundane is susceptible to acute scrutiny and that the Transcendent can only be approached by faith. This of course is not new and raises no reason for attention. What is new, however, is where he draws that line between the mundane and sacred. Sacred Vedic tradition, and I venture to say that tradition which has been presented for the komala-sraddhas, would have us believe that the entire tradition itself is transcendent and therefore exempt from approach by logic. To scrutinize sacred tradition is to engage in blasphemy. What blasphemy, to think that the Srimad Bhagavatam may be a book of only 1000 years, in temporal time! Bhaktivinoda tell us, however, that time is mundane and his scrutiny in no way affects the conclusions about the eternalness of Bhakti. By presenting the Sri-krishna-samhita he has greatly extended the limits of reason in regards to understanding Vedic knowledge.

Table of Contents
Foreword by Thomas J. Hopkins
Excerpt
How to Order

Table of Contents
Foreword by Thomas J. Hopkins
Excerpt
How to Order

Bhaktivinoda envisioned the modern Hindu as the saragrahi (essence seeker), one who could appreciate the truth held within all religious perspectives.

Retail Price: US $24.95

Special Web Price $19.95