|
A paper on the Hare Krsna movement and its understanding of
its earliest roots and sources, its debts to and perspectives on
the past would, I think, be an interesting one. I also believe that
such a paper cannot yet be written or understood - at least not
without extensive footnotes. The short discussion which follows,
therefore, details the obstacles encountered en route to a descriptive
account.
In 1977, a postgraduate in the early stages of conducting
a phenomenological study of Indian Hindus in Britain went with a
party of Leeds Gujaratis to Bhaktivedanta Manor (a major UK temple
community of the International Society for Krsna Consciousness (or
the Hare Krsna Movement, as it is better known). With the newly
acquired tools of objectivity and empathy the student was making
some progress in learning about the practice of Hinduism amongst
South Asians recently settled here, ISKCON being just one example
of the ways in which Hinduism was expressed in its new context.
In the course of the tour of the Manor, the postgraduate met and
talked with an eager brahmacari. The substance of the interchange
was that he maintained the Bhagavad-gita was five thousand
years old while the student was convinced that it was written around
200 BC. The student felt the conversation could not progress beyond
this point because it rested on the raison d`etre of both
the devotee of Krsna and the scholar involved in the discipline
of the history of religions.
I admit that this conclusion is a little exaggerated.
Many scholars, before and since, have studied New Religious Movements
(NRMs) in general and the Hare Krsna Movement in particular. However,
I believed at the time that this conversation marked the end of
my relations with the devotees of Krsna Consciousness. Objectivity
and empathy thrown out the window I returned home, heatedly proclaiming
their ignorance and by extension, the folly of their appearance,
behaviour and beliefs. I ignored my own inability to undertake decent
phenomenological research in my feelings of righteous indignation.
In 1983, however, I was asked to write a book on the Hare Krsna
movement. By then I had largely forgotten my prejudices and was
able to treat this delicate issue with a little more common sense
and sensitivity.
To return to my original conclusion, it is not difficult
to see what this argument represents for the two opponents. To the
devotee, the Bhagavad-gita is considered to be sruti
or revealed scripture. It is part of the Vedic canon written by
Vyasadeva from the breath of Lord Brhama five thousand years ago.
The Hare Krsna brahmacari, along with many Indian Hindus,
believed this with all his heart. For the student or scholar of
religion, however, a very different picture emerges. The Bhagavad-gita
is considered to be an independent part of the epic poem, the Mahabharata
which, while discussing earlier events, was not written until approximately
200 BCE-CE 200. Scholars accept this theory on the strength of the
apparently sound research of academics in the fields of linguistic
analysis, archaeology and comparative literary and historical studies.
Faith in the origins of revealed scripture is important to the majority
of devotees whereas dependence on historical facts is vital to most
scholars of religion. To some extent this issue, both for devotee
and scholar , becomes one of 'authority'.
It should be emphasised, however, that although this
constitutes an important subject for both devotee and scholar, it
is only one amongst many. Numerous interesting interviews, encounters
and dialogues have taken place between researchers and devotees
in the UK and, more particularly, in the USA. There are two ways
to overcome the debate on dates: either it can just be put to one
side or the scholar can follow the example of Judah (1974) and admit
the whole area of historical dating in early India is open to serious
question.
The debate does raise a number of interesting questions
and issues if we are prepared to stand still and examine it rather
than battling it out or resorting to the 'safer' option of studying
Vedic literature in general rather than the Bhagavad-gita
in particular.
Scholarly views of the content and dating of Vedic
literature
Such views are many and various, although the general
consensus of opinion dates the arrival of the Aryans from Central
Europe at approximately 1500 BCE and the Vedas themselves at around
1500-1200 BCE. As Chaudhuri (1979) points out, there is very little
evidence to support this particular date for the composition of
the Vedas (nor any other date for that matter). Some scholars opt
for even earlier dates; for example, Radhakrishnan and Moore (1957)
suggest approximate dates of 2500 BCE for the arrival of Aryan culture
and 1500 BC E for the composition of the Vedas. Recent discoveries
of cities in the Indus Valley have led archaeologists to date Harappan
culture at between 3000 and 1500 BCE, and Aryan culture after 1500
BCE (Tharpar, 1966). None of these dates are conclusive, however,
and it is well known that the whole process of dating settlements
and texts in early India is very difficult. As Tharpar (1966) states,
the Painted-Grey Ware found on archaeological sites in the West
is still only 'tentatively' associated with the Aryans. In addition,
Judah comments:
The dating of all early Hindu literature is subject to considerable
controversy and must be considered tentative. For example, the
four traditional Vedas ... represent material that was transmitted
orally in archaic Sanskrit for centuries ... Since none of these
compilations have manuscripts dating close to their time of origin,
dating is risky, and one must depend largely on internal criticism
such as changes in language, thought and locale.
Dating may be inconclusive but few scholars have felt happy to
discuss Vedic literature and culture without it. (Dasgupta [1975]
and Chaudhuri [1979] try not to speculate, although the latter certainly
has opinions on the matter).
Moving on from the question of composition dates to
the scope and content of the Vedas, we find less controversy. Vedic
literature is generally considered to include all sruti ,
that is the four Samhitas, the Brahmanas, Aranyakas
and Upanishads. All other Sanskrit religious texts are smrti
(remembered not heard). This category includes the Vedanta Sutra
, the 'Epics' (such as the Bhagavad-gita) and the Puranas.
Most of the major concepts in Hinduism are detailed in what scholars
define 'Vedic literature'- varna, ashrama, karma,
samsara, moksha etc., although most of these appear
in later compositions of literature (such as the Upanishads)
rather than earlier scriptures. Some aspects of the Aryan culture
can also be ascertained from these texts (Kunhan Raja, Altekar [1958],
Tharpar [1966]).
This is the popular view of Vedic literature which
is put forward in all standard books on India and its religions
(for example, Tharpar, Hopkins, Zaehner, Brocklington etc). For
students of religious studies, and indeed for most scholars, this
view is the accepted authority.
The 'devotional' view of Vedic literature
Two views could hardly be more different than the scholarly
and devotional ones on this issue. To devotees of the Hare Krsna
Movement, Vedic literature begins with Krsna (God). Through His
expansion as Lord Brahma, Krsna revealed vital knowledge to Vyasadeva,
including the four Samhitas, the Brahmanas and Vedanta
Sutra . In addition, Vyasadeva was requested to compile the
'perfect commentary' on the Vedanta Sutra, and thus on the
whole corpus of early Sanskrit literature, in the form of the Bhagavata
Purtana (or Srimad Bhagavatam). Devotees believe this
exchange took place approximately five thousand years ago before
the advent of the present age of Kali yuga.
The timeless wisdom of India is expressed in the Vedas,
ancient Sanskrit texts that touch upon all fields of human knowledge.
Originally preserved through oral tradition, the Vedas were first
put into writing by Srila Vyasadeva, the 'literary incarnation
of God'. After compiling the Vedas, Srila Vyasadeva was inspired
by his spiritual master to present their profound essence in the
form of the Srimad Bhagavatam . Known as 'the ripened fruit
of the tree of Vedic literature', Srimad Bhagavatam is
the most complete and authoritative exposition of Vedic knowledge.
(Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam , cover notes)
Hare Krsna devotees believe there are five, rather
than four, Vedas (the fifth being the Bhagavad-gita). The
Vedas are sruti but the Srimad Bhagavatam is smrti,
albeit the most important part. When the term 'Vedic literature'
is used by devotees it does not simply mean sruti but literature
from the early period which expresses authoritative 'knowledge'
about God. This includes the Bhagavad-gita and the rest of
the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Srimad Bhagavatam
and the other Puranas. (It is possible that, by extension,
some devotees may also include texts such as Krsnadasa Kaviraja`s
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta).
It is important to stress several things here. First,
the Hare Krsna Movement is not alone in its understanding of Vedic
literature:
Like the Pancharatrins, Madhva, Chaitanya and other
Vaisnavas, Bhaktivedanta extended the authority of the word 'Vedic'
beyond the Upanishads so as to apply to the Puranas,
the Mahabharata, and the original Ramayana .The
influential Vaisnava philosopher, Madhva, taught that the ultimate
aim of all revealed and traditional texts was to testify to the
super-excellence of Vishnu as the supreme Lord . How natural then
for the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, who believe that Krsna is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, to accept as equally revealed the words
of Krsna in the Gita, or of Chaitanya, his avatar. (Judah,
1974)
A number of religious leaders and teachers have held
the Puranas to be the successor to the Vedas, even a fifth
Veda. Renou (1965) commented: 'It is also stated that these texts
are a means of access to the Veda, therefore, they are intermediaries,
if not intercessors'. While many of those outside the Vaisnava fold
would be unwilling to accept the Puranas in this way, it
is likely that even some Advaita Vedantins would see the
Bhagavad-gita as sruti. Those who do not, however,
would certainly not deny its enormous importance, as illustrated
by Sankara and subsequent Vedantin philosophers.
The second consideration , which is a reiteration of
an earlier point, is the concept of 'knowledge'. Veda means 'knowledge'
and thus Vedic literature is the source of knowledge about God,
the soul and spiritual life. For this reason, it is important that
the scriptures present a coherent picture. Commentators such as
Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vishnuswami, Nimbarka and Chaitanya have
seen this picture in different ways, but as far as the Hare Krsna
devotees are concerned, Chaitanya's interpretation is the true one.
Chaitanya`s view was authoritative because of his incarnational
status and spiritual link in a chain of disciplic succession with
Vyasadeva and Krsna Himself (parampara). In addition. Chaitanya
and his followers present an interpretation which seeks to combine
all earlier positions (acintya bhedabhedab - identity-in-difference).
The Hare Krsna Movement, which traces its ancestry
back through A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to Chaitanya,
sees this all-embracing account of Vedic literature (and the culture
and lifestyle described therein) as authoritative. The Vedas contain
knowledge of God and spiritual life, and knowledge has been passed
down from God through a succession of like-minded spiritual masters.
Having characterised the view of Vedic literature
held by both camps (in particular the less well-known one of the
Hare Krsna devotees), I shall briefly discuss the two broad issues
which arise when these views come together in encounter. These issues
relate not only to the scholarly encounter with Krsna Consciousness
but also with other Hindu groups. They also help to bring into focus
the way in which traditions operate, albeit devotional or scholarly.
Vedic literature: hermeneutical considerations
Chaudhuri (1979) suggests that the tradition of dating
the Vedas at 1500-1200 BC stems from the likelihood that even Western
scholars were unconsciously swayed by the fantastic chronology of
the Hindus but 'being incapable of swallowing that camel, selected
instead a smaller animal which would more easily go down their throats'.
In understanding the two traditions of dating - scholarly
and devotional - we have to bear in mind the history of debate on
this and other related issues. Traditionally, Indians had a different
understanding of the operation of history. The events of the recent
past were seen as less important than that which could be learned
from stories about past yugas. European scholars, from a
religious and intellectual tradition with a deep and abiding concern
for linear history, took a different view. They were interested
in the content and teachings of the texts but were equally fascinated
by what the texts suggested about a people. Inevitably they wanted
to discover more about when this people lived, where they came from,
when the texts themselves were composed, etc.
The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
saw the first encounter of these two groups, the Indians and the
Europeans (particularly the British) with their differing orientations,
which led to the development of further perspectives on this issue.
As is well known, the British were unhappy about many 'Hindoo' practices
and their attitude led to a concern for social and religious reform
amongst Indians themselves. This concern, coupled with the European
scholarly interest in the Vedic age and its texts (perceived to
be the earliest known to man), led many religious leaders to look
back to this early period as a source of great spiritual teaching
(for example, Ram Mohan Roy's interest in the Upanishads
and, particularly, Dayananda Saraswati`s focus on the Vedic 'Golden
Age'). Contemporaneous with this Indian desire to 'look back' was
the European scholarly (particularly German idealist) reverence
for the Vedas which, in its own way, also glorified this early period.
These complex attitudes and interests have been responsible
for encouraging and supporting different accounts of the dating
of Vedic literature and its contents. If we add to these the late
nineteenth century Bengali renaissance of Hindu devotionalism (exemplified
by Ramakrishna and the Gaudiya Vaisnava Mission [the parent of Krsna
Consciousness]), and the twentieth century scholarly interest in
texts and archaeology, we have a more complete picture of the sources
for understanding both views.
The Vedic age and its literature: a nineteenth century
invention?
It is tempting to assume, on the basis of the nineteenth century
encounter between India and the West and its subsequent products,
that the whole debate and the independent views its comprises, has
its source there. Furthermore, it is assumed that Indian interest
in the Vedas and other scriptures, and its reverence for the Vedic
way of life only developed as a result of this coming together of
East and West, as did that of scholars.
While the latter point is clearly true, the former is
more complex. It is not simply the case that the Hare Krsna Movement's
interest in Vedic literature and culture, and its perception of
the origins of the texts themselves, are a function of nineteenth
century developments. As we have seen, within the Hare Krsna movement
there is a concern with authority and, it could even be said, with
a linear understanding of spiritual succession from Chaitanya and
Krsna Himself. Like the Arya Samaj, the nineteenth Gaudiya Vaisnava
Mission saw the Vedic period as ideal and viewed certain scriptures
as important for spiritual guidance. Contrary to the Arya Samaj,
however, this movement did not seek to legitimise itself solely
in terms of the authority it gave to Vedic literature, but was also
concerned to stress its own historical continuity with the period
of those texts. Furthermore, while the Arya Samaj revered the Vedas
and dismissed lattr literature as idolatrous, the Gaudiya Vaisnava
Mission (and, in its wake, the Hare Krsna Movement) was more interested
in texts which stressed bhakti , which it saw as Vedic in
type.
Typical of most Vaisnava sects, the Gaudiya Vaisnava
Mission and the Hare Krsna Movement have both made a point of stressing
Vedic links. They do not accept the scholarly view that the Bhagavad-gita
and Bhagavata Purana were composed significantly later than
the Vedas. Instead, the Bhagavad-gita is seen as broadly
contemporaneous with the Vedic Samhitas and Upanisads
but of greater significance in terms of its contribution to spiritual
knowledge (as opposed to ritual practice or philosophical speculation),
the Bhagavad Purana being the original commentary explaining
and building on these sruti texts.
The Gaudiya Vaisnava Mission and the Hare Krsna Movement
are not simply being perverse in this matter - there is a long history
of this view. As we have already seen, Madhava and Chaitanya saw
the Bhagavad-gita and the Bhagavata Purana as part
of the original teachings of Krsna. Furthermore, as representatives
of the Vaisnava sampradaya, they are part of a tradition
(vedanta) which also stresses its links with the Vedas. Scholars
always cite Ramanuja as having legitimised early Vaishnavism, referring
not only to the Bhagavad-gita but also to the Upanisads and
Vedanta Sutra. Madhava, Visnusvami and Nimbarka carried on
this tradition. As Renou (1965) comments in his account of the Vedas
in India's past:
Like the Shaivities, the Vaisnavities of Vedantin
obedience remain attached to theVeda, even when they are influenced
by bhakti (an a-Vedic phenomenon, if ever there was one).
Vedanta is the rallying point of Vedic tendencies, and one is
faithful to the Veda to the extent that one is Vedantin.
The important point here is that these Vaisnava movements are not
simply legitimising their own texts on the strength of the fame
of the earlier texts, they believe that these texts are one, that
they all incorporate to a greater or lesser extent the same basic
teachings. The Indian scholar Srivatsa Goswami, himself a Vaisnava
in the Chaitanya tradition, says:
The earliest written documents of Indian religious
history are the Vedas, which may be the earliest religious writings
in the entire world. It is said, 'Veda-mula jagad sarvam -
Veda is the root of the whole universe. That means that all concepts
are present, at least in seed form, in the Vedas. We don't claim
that there is a well-defined Vaisnava system in the Veda, but
the root is there. In the Vedas we find gods and people devoted
to gods, and that is bhakti ... .
The concept of bhakti has taken shape in the
Vedas. There are numerous textual evidences for this. This means
that even before the time of the Vedas, some form of bhakti
was present, of which the Vedas are a document ...
Furthermore, in Hare Krsna and the Counterculture,
Steven Gelberg noted:
The point is that bhakti is an eternal human
tendency; it is not merely some kind of historical movement arising
out of peculiar social and cultural circumstances ...
The Vedas themselves are therefore seen as containing
the same teaching as the more obvious Vaisnava texts, although the
teachings are more thoroughly expounded in the Bhagavad-gita
and Bhagavata Purana. It seems probable, and this is illustrated
by the 'commentary tradition', that this view was shared by Vaisnava
philosophers and teachers in the medieval period and nineteenth
and twentieth centuries.
From a Western scholarly point of view, there is a tendency
to feel (as Renou revealed in his comments on bhakti) that
the teachings expounded in these texts are far from compatible,
and an equally strong tendency to see those who feel differently
as unorthodox - 'swimming against the tide'. In part, this may be
because from the standpoint of our own intellectual and cultural
tradition, the seemingly a-historical and inclusivist (or syncretist)
interpretation put forward by Vaisnavas, is unusual, foreign and,
undoubtedly, wrong. For most scholars - and this is only my opinion
- the question of the Vaisnava view of the dating and parameters
of Vedic literature requires a phenomenological leap which is almost
impossible to take. We have come to believe, almost as firmly as
most Vaisnavas, in the accuracy of a particular view of both the
approximate dating of Sanskrit texts and in the reference and use
of terms such as Vedic and sruti. Behind both the devotional
and scholarly views, are intellectual and cultural traditions: the
problem is that one, the scholarly, aims to understand and present
the other, the devotional., objectively and empathically simultaneously.
This is difficult when that which is to be understood and presented
rests on ways of thinking about things which differ radically from
those underpinning the scholarly tradition itself. For example,
the contemporary Western study of history, the concept of evolutionary
intellectual development, etc.
Bibliography
Altekar, A., in The Cultural Heritage of India,
Vol. 1. Calcutta, Ramakrishna Mission, Calcutta, 1958.
Chaudhuri, N, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By
. London, Oxford University Press, 1979.
Dasgupta, S., A History of Indian Philosophy.
Delhi, Motilal Banarsi dass, 1975.
Garuda Dasa, 'Dharma: Nature, Duty and Divine Service,
Back to Godhead, December, 1980.
Gelberg, S. (ed.), Hare Krsna and the Counterculture.
New York, John Wiley, 1983.
Kunhan, Raja C., in The Cultural Heritage of India,
Vol. 1. Calcutta, Ramakrishna Mission, 1958.
Prabhupada, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Srimad Bhagavatam,
Canto 1, Vol. 1. Los Angeles, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972.
Radhakrishnan, S. and Moore, C. A., A Sourcebook
in Indian Philosophy. New Jersey, Princeton University Press,
1957.
Renuo I., The Destiny of the Veda in India .
Delhi, Motilal Banarsi dass, 1965.
Tharpar, R., History of India, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth,
Penguin Books, 1966.
|
|
